WAR! WAR! WAR! [3rd ed.]

Citation preview

WAR! WAR! WAR! B y Cincinnatus

with a foreword by Eustace M u l l i n s

and an afterword by W i l l i a m Anderson

T h i r d E d i t i o n — Revised 1984

Sons O f L i b e r t y P . O . B o x 214 Metairie, L A . 70004

Copyright © 1984 by Sons of Liberty All rights reserved Printed in the U.S.A. Third Edition Revised and Reprinted - 1984 ISBN: 0-89562-100-2



i 1





3. A M E R I C A N TORIES IN T H E W A R OF 1812




































E N G L A N D A N D F R A N C E D E M A N D WE R E - E L E C T R O O S E V E L T













† A hyperbolic Talmudic(?) number appears on page 153 and should presumably read "5,000,000" (or in the light of current knowledge) "50,000,000".


T H E TRAGIC TRUTH by Eustace Mullins Cincinnatus concluded his epic "War! War! War!" with his prophesy that if Roosevelt was re-elected in 1940, it would mean that we would become involved in World War II. Cincinnatus hoped that Wendell Willkie might be elected, and avoid that prospect. He was right about Roosevelt's re-election, but too optimistic about Willkie, who represented the same sinister forces of international banking, the Brotherhood of Death, as did Roosevelt. It was not Roosevelt, but Willkie, who wrote "One World," the blueprint for the new world totalitarian order. Ironically, Willkie died as a result of his association with the greatest mass murderer of history, Josef Stalin. To further Willkie's worldwide campaign for the permanent enshrinement of terrorism, the U.S. government outfitted a converted Liberator B-24 bomber for his wartime junket. He was accompanied on his tour by a named Communist, Joseph Barnes. During Willkie's visit to Russia, Good Old Joe personally ordered that he be provided with a buxom guide. This well-trained agent introduced Willkie to high-altitude aerobatics during their flights in Russia, and Willkie irreparably strained his heart. He died after returning to the States. Like World War I, World War II had no discernible political or economic origins or goals. Once again, the white nations marched their young men onto the battlefields for profitable slaughter. The only new development was that in World War II, political commissars now accompanied the troops to the front lines, vigilant to punish any expression of doubt or lack of confidence in the rear echelon Marxists who directed the Soviet armies and their American allies. Wendell Willkie titled one chapter of his book, "Our Ally Russia." This book was actually written by Joseph Barnes according to Soviet dictates. "One World" contains many idolatrous references to Stalin, like other pro-Communist writings of the period, referring to Stalin's "simple, moving eloquence," "a very able man," "A simple man, with no affectations or poses." On page 35, Willkie indulges in unconscious humor, when he notes that "Stalin likes a pretty heavy turnover in his immediate entourage in the Kremlin." The "turnover," of course, was due to Stalin's propensity for murdering anyone close to him. In his chapter, "What We Are Fighting For," Willkie approvingly quotes Stalin's pronunciamento of November 28, 1942, on the 25th anniversary of the October Revolution: "Abolition of racial exclusiveness, equality of nations and the in-

tegrity of their territories, liberation of enslaved nations and restoration of their sovereign rights, the right of every nation to arrange its affairs as it wishes, economic aid to nations that have suffered and assistance to them in attaining their material welfare, restoration of democratic liberties, and destruction of the Hitlerite regime." The Communist desire to "liberate enslaved nations" will come as a surprise to the enslaved nations of Eastern Europe, and the goal of maintaining "integrity of their territories" rings strangely in view of the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, and other oppressed nations. Like other announced goals of World War II, the Atlantic Charter and the Four Freedoms, Stalin's program achieved only one goal, "the destruction of the Hitlerite regime," the only government in the world which had opposed the spread of Communist aggression with its military forces. The "abolition of racial exclusiveness," which has been official U.S. government policy since 1945, was, quite simply, the Jewish Marxist goal of planned genocide of the white race, because the white race remained the only possible opposition to the total domination of the world by international Jewish Marxism. No African or Asiatic nation has ever mounted a successful counter-revolution against a Communist regime, nor have they ever desired to. One hundred million white people died violently during World War II, but the only Asiatic people to suffer serious losses were the Japanese, who were known as "the Aryans of the East," because of their aggressiveness and their highly developed technological abilities. Because of their well known opposition to Communism, the Japanese people were selected by Jewish strategists as the guinea pigs for the testing of the new Jewish Hellbomb, a weapon so horrible that when Hitler learned his scientists had begun work on it, he furiously ordered them to halt its development. He refused to allow his name or the name of the German people to be associated with such an inhumane operation. This allowed the Jews to develop their atomic hellbomb in Los Alamos for Roosevelt and Stalin, with no competition from anywhere in the world. They developed it in order to exterminate the entire German people, but, with the unlimited funds provided by American taxpayers, they turned it into a typical billion dollar Jewish boondoggle which dragged on until after Germany's defeat. Fortunately, the homicidal maniacs still had one anti-Communist nation left on which they could conduct their atomic experiment, the island of Japan. Like most historic Jewish military operations, the great massacres of World War II occurred, not on the battlefield, but in peaceful neighborhood communities. This was in accordance with the diktat of the Book of Esther, which directs the Jews to massacre women and children, and to exterminate the families of those who dare to oppose

them. Thus it was in Dresden, a historic German cultural center, where many thousands of German women and children refugees from Communism had gathered. They were assured by the Red Cross that they would be safe, even while the Jewish generals were preparing to murder them. The blood-maddened Jews desired not only to murder as many white civilians as possible but also to erase from history all evidence of Western civilization, the greatest examples of white culture which had been gathered in Dresden, the irreplaceable porcelain, the priceless paintings, the baroque furniture, and the rococo mansions with their poetry carved in stone. A l l was laid waste in a mass bombing attack in which some 300,000 German civilians died in a city which was not even a military target! The responsibility for this horrible slaughter, in which helpless noncombatants died horribly by flame and explosion, rests with, who else, "the Americans." At the last minute, the Soviets prudently withdrew from what was planned as a "joint-Allied" venture. Today, the Soviets denounce the United States for the annihilation of Dresden. Like Dresden, Hiroshima was also an ancient cultural center, with no visible military objective. Its non combatant families also died horribly by the hundreds of thousands. Many were pulverized instantly by the first atomic bomb ever used in a military operation, but thousands of other victims lived on for years, mangled and burned, their limbs and organs slowly rotting away from radiation poisoning. Even while the Japanese officials were desperately suing for peace, the Jews hastily ordered the dropping of a second atomic bomb, this one on Nagasaki, bringing off a second "test" of their Hellbomb against helpless noncombatants, as prescribed by the Book of Esther. Again, hundreds of thousands of civilians died horribly. At last, the Jews had achieved the weapon which they planned to use to terrorize the entire world into subjecting itself to their insane frenzies and their frequently voiced goal of world domination of the "animals," or non-Jews. As Chaim Weizmann boasted, "We will never again actually have to use this atomic weapon in military operations, as the mere threat of its use will persuade any opponent to surrender to us." What Cincinnatus feared at the onset of World War II tragically came to pass; the victorious Marxist armies; the genocide of one hundred million white people, many of them women and children; the rescue and salvation of the world Communist movement from the onslaught of its most determined enemies. It is a drama of unrelieved tragedy, of the betrayal of the hopes and dreams of all the peoples of the world, sold into the waiting hands of Jewish Marxist maniacs and terrorists. It seemed that the final curtain had been rung down on the saga of Western culture.

What would Cincinnatus see if he were with us today? He would see that the white race, with its tremendous resilience, its boundless energy, and its unrivalled cultural resources, has rebounded to rebuild a Europe destroyed, even those nations which the dying Roosevelt gleefully signed over to Good Old Joe, while the drunken would-be actor Churchill sat staring in an alcoholic stupor. What a spectacle of history — the three horsemen who hoped to bring the Apocalypse to Western civilization — the cripple, the drunkard, the homicidal maniac, men whose unequalled personal depravity qualified them to be elected by the Jews as the agents who would cause the white race to be swept away in a sea of blood. Although the white race has survived, it has done so at a terrible price. The perverts in power and their Brotherhood of Death have carried out a series of successful attacks on white family life. Endless forced extortions from white American workers have financed vast boondoggles in Israel, Soviet Russia and black Africa. White wives have been forced to leave their homes and take second jobs to pay the terrible tax burden, leaving their small children to the mercies of "child care" centers which have become cesspools of child molestation, sexual perversion, alcohol and drugs. The Satanic alliance of international bankers, government officials, church leaders, tax exempt foundations, academia and the media have unleased a horde of criminal terrorists against white citizens. These terrorists are heavily subsidized by government funds in order to finance their criminal pursuits. It is these terrorists who comprise the real police force in America today. Their weapons and their depredations keep the white workers from mounting a counter attack against the criminal operations of the Jewish-dominated government. The Marxist courts reserve their stiffest sentences for white Americans, "tax protesters" who refuse to pay taxes to the State of Israel, or who injure a terrorist while he is committing his crimes. Cincinnatus could not help but be appalled at the horrible massacre of one hundred million whites during World War II and the subsequent brutal enslavement of the survivors. American soldiers have been stationed in Germany ever since 1945, solely to ensure the cruel extortion of more than thirty billion dollars as a ransom to the bandit state of Israel from the defeated German workers who had lost their battle against world Communism. Political dissent in the United States is now an underground movement. Both of the two criminal Marxist parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, require a public statement of allegiance to the State of Israel before they allow any candidate to seek public office. In both Europe and America, white workers are oppressed by ever increasing taxes and other exactions from their wages merely to pay interest on the astronomically mushrooming Jewish debt, while in-

flation and other Jewish monetary tricks rob them of the remainder of their possessions. History teaches us that, just as today, the Jews always go too far in their Talmudic war of extermination against the Christians. Their religion, taught from childhood, instructs them to regard all non-Jews as animals who are to be ritually slaughtered for the profit of the Jews. In his gloomiest moments, Cincinnatus could not have foreseen the terrible price which white people would have to pay in World War II merely to survive in a Jewish world. Now we must ask — what price will white people pay to liberate themselves from this tyranny — to march into a future in which these atrocities against us will no longer be tolerated by any sane human being — to build a world in which those who are dedicated to the enslavement and destruction of other human beings will be eliminated for all time and all trace of their evil presence to be forever eradicated, so that the white man for the first time in history will be able to enjoy the fruits of his freedom. Despite the ordeals which the white race has endured, we still retain those qualities which make these goals not only a possibility, but inevitable. Our courage will overcome the stealthy conspiracies of the Jewish Marxist terrorists. Our determination will overcome the hatred with which the Talmudists have poisoned the world. Our lives will be placed in the breach for one final time, for one great and victorious effort, the attaining of eternal freedom!

INTRODUCTION This pamphlet is compiled and paid for by an American citizen, whose forefathers came from Scotland and England and were officers in the Revolutionary Army. He is an old-fashioned Democrat, who believes in a Republican form of government based upon individual initiative, in the private ownership of property, and in the principle that the best governed are the least governed. He believes in a government of law, ascertainable and understandable, enforced by impartial courts operating under tried, recognized and established principles. He is opposed to a government of men, operating as absolute administrative bureaucracies, with a maze of unrevealed and ever changing rules and regulations, in defiance of our established and inherited principles, which insure justice, integrity and fairness. He believes in the supremacy of the Federal Government with limited, enumerated and delegated powers, and that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the individual States and to the people thereof. He believes that not only the Bill of Rights but also the Constitution should be honored, scrupulously observed, and not evaded or distorted. He believes that the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the government should be forever separate and distinct, and that no person exercising the functions of one of said departments should be permitted to assume or discharge the powers or duties of the other. He believes that the continuance of our Republic depends upon an honest respect by the Federal Government and by the States, each within its own Constitutional sphere, for the checks and balances provided by their Constitutions. He opposes any encroachment, under the guise of an emergency, by the executive, legislative or judicial branches of the government upon the rights or obligations of any other department thereof. He believes that the concentration of power in the hands of one person or of one class is subversive of the Constitution and the chief characteristic and evil of a tyrannical and despotic form of government. He knows that stealthy centralization of power in the Chief Executive, called by any name, President, Imperator, Duce or Fuehrer, has brought the destruction of the liberties of the people and their form of government, whenever and wherever it has occurred. He believes a long continuance in the Executive Department to be dangerous, and a change in executive office is one of the best securities of permanent freedom. He believes in home rule and in local self govern1

ment. He believes that peace time conscription and large standing armies are dangerous to the Republic and are crafty steps to an imperialistic and militaristic government. He demands that no foreign government in any wise interfere in our affairs, and, in a spirit of fair play and decent, honest regard for the rights of other nations, he opposes our meddling in their problems or fighting in their eternal wars. He abhors Communism, Nazism, and Fascism. He is of Presbyterian-Episcopalian descent. What he has to say is uttered with profound regret and under the compulsion of what he believes to be a duty to his country. Like most native Anglo-Saxon Americans, he has always deplored anything that savors of racial appeal. Throughout his life he has maintained the friendliest relations with the Jews and has supported them in their business ambitions and candidacy for high office. He has no personal animus against them as individuals, but his experience, observations and study have created, regretfully, a profound distrust of them as a race which cannot be assimilated, refuse to give up their distinct Jewish Nationality, and who, with few exceptions, put the interests of their race, wherever they may reside, ahead of America, which has given them a kindly welcome and an opportunity only equalled by that in England. It is true that the Sephardic Jews, who arrived in this country from about 1650 to about 1830 — from Spain and Portugal, via England and Holland — were in the main a fine type. The probability is that not over two or three hundred thousand of them came here. Many of them intermarried with our best families and became assimilated. Some of the Ashkenazic Jews, who arrived from Germany, Austria and Hungary, were likewise men of cultivation and character, though the Sephardic Jews for a long time would not intermarry with them, nor worship with them in the same synagogue. From about 1880 until the present time, many millions more of the Ashkenazic Jews have arrived from Russia, Poland, Lithuania, Roumania, etc. They are still coming on every boat and, with the connivance of the Administration, crowding off American citizens. For the most part they are termites and cannot and should not be assimilated. They have threatened and coerced many of the Sephardic Jews into loyalty to World Jewry rather than to America. The writer's first awareness, that we in America had acquired a serious and probably menacing Jewish problem, dates from the influx of Jews into the Government, following the election of President Roosevelt. He was profoundly disturbed by their numbers in key positions, their obvious "inside" influence and their arrogance toward 2

less successful Christians. He grew to feel that however brilliant, ambitious and energetic some of them are, the domination of any racial, political, social or financial group in the affairs of government is dangerous to national welfare and safety. Justice Brandeis' statement that the Jews are a Distinct Nationality regardless of where they live, their station in life or their shades of belief, and his clarion call to all the Jews in the world to "organize, organize, organize," added to his alarm. He had been nurtured in a Christian home on the principles and traditions of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Marshall, Jackson and Cleveland, and looked with dismay and disgust upon propaganda, which put the interests of any foreign race or country before the safety of America. In 1937 when another war cyclone commenced to threaten eternally belligerent Europe, and he realized that propaganda for us to make the supreme sacrifice was again being conducted insidiously, continuously, incessantly, falsely, and fervently by press, radio and moving pictures, he became interested in finding out who was responsible for putting European war interests ahead of American security. He discovered that nearly all the metropolitan newspapers, the radio, the moving pictures, the magazines, book publishing companies, etc., that is to say, all forms of communication, save the spoken word, were monopolized by Jews in alliances with Tories and Anglophiles, and supported by many of the large financial and business interests of America. A practical monopoly by one element, of the means of communication and of propaganda, is destructive of the rights of a free people and ultimately injurious to its possessors. An informed public w i l l not be satisfied indefinitely with "honest trifles" bestowed upon it by the organs of publicity, which "betray them in deepest consequence". He found that New Y o r k City, the press, radio, moving pictures, international finance, W a l l Street, big business, the rich and fashionable metropolitan pulpits, the parlor pinks, the fellow travelers, play-boy multimillionaires hunting for new excitement, untried diplomats, the select universities and the intelligentsia had for the most part joined the Anglophiles and the Jews in their effort to create a hysteria of false fear and hate, in order to condition the unsuspecting mind and spirit of the vast mass of American middle-class people to believe that the interminable European wars are our wars, and that we could and would be successfully attacked unless we pooled our resources of blood and money with those of the British Empire. Every unbiased student of history and foreign affairs knows that the new world war is not a war for Democracy, but a war to main3

tain the British-Jewish Empire, its tremendous wealth, its commercial supremacy and overlordship of the seven seas, and above all for the unconditional return of central Europe to Jewish control, even though it results in chaos, the destruction of millions of lives and the hopeless insolvency of all the civilized world. Howls and pressure to involve our blood, our financial resources and our form of government in this second W o r l d War are now wide open, and the clamor of Jewish newspapers and radios, munition makers, demagogues, Judases, Benedict Arnolds and Shylocks grows daily more raucous and insistent. History shows that despite the fact that we have been obliged to fight England twice in defense of our liberties, on numerous occasions to warn her against imperiling this continent and that she has on three occasions violated the Monroe Doctrine, a small but powerful minority of our citizens have been always, and still are violently Anglophile. Their influence, plus that of World Jewry, brought us into the World War, involved us in the misnamed peace, which is today responsible, in part at least, for the present world disaster, and tried to draw us into support of the World State—a Jewish concept— by way of the League of Nations. Add the influence of the international Jew, with his variety of anti-American ambitions, ideals and policies to that of the Anglophile, with his consuming admiration and idolization of all things British, and we have the ingredients of tragic peril. If the great mass of middle-class patriotic Americans who fight the wars and pay for them in blood, privation, taxation and loss of liberty, possessed or controlled one-third of the nation's propaganda organs of press, radio and moving pictures, this writer would have felt no personal patriotic duty to give liberally of his time and limited resources to an investigation of the power, intent and conduct of representative Jews in Europe and America, and to discovering the collaboration with them of international finance, war mongers, big business and all forms of communication. The result of his investigation, the lack of interest and knowledge on the part of patriotic Americans, and the almost complete and arbitrary power of the Jews to prevent his disclosure of what he discovered, astounded and terrified him. America, since Colonial days, had been good to him and his forefathers, and he determined, regardless of the probable consequences to himself, that he owed to his country a duty to tell them truths of which they are unaware, in an effort to awaken the interest and zeal of middle-class Christian America to the sordid conspiracy that will bring death and suffering to 4

millions of our Christian youths, the destruction of the savings of our people and a dictatorship which may become permanent. The Jewish problem is present with us to-day. We did not ask for it and we do not welcome it. Against our innermost nature we are compelled to grapple with it, and only a knowledge of the evidence in the case can justify a discussion of it. Criticism of the Jew is based upon facts of unusual accuracy. They are endorsed by the record of time and of history. They are the creation of the Jew himself. The evidence sustains it despite all the willful muddling, misrepresentation and concealments of sentimental, hired or pressured columnists, writers and news agencies. We are at present in no condition of social, political or material health to deal with our peril — and in the creation of this, the Jew and Roosevelt have played the principal part. Right now, all Jewish power, open and secret, is directed toward drawing us for their use and benefit into the new World War. Precisely as they "captured" Woodrow Wilson and forced him to abandon his neutrality and peace policy, they are encircling like a pack of wolves the isolationist forces which would prevent a recurrence of that disaster. They are ready for the kill. We are asked to fight again for an arrogant, mercenary England which is not the grand old England of our forefathers, but an Empire only a little less Jewish than was that of Germany following the World War. The principal motives are obvious, to punish Hitler's Germany for its anti-Semitism and to broaden the scope of Jewish influence throughout the world. There are subsidiary objectives, of course. First among these is a revision of our form of government. Advanced rapidly under the New Deal as a series of "emergency measures", the culminating "emergency", for which the outlines of a new form of government are already drawn, will appear when we again join the Empire Allies in their crusade " i n defense of democracy". The evidence to support this charge is complete and final. German Governments have played the crooked, cruel game of power politics with marked cards, as continuously and intensely as have the English and the Jews. If the Nazis possessed one-tenth the power in press, radio and moving pictures, in pulpit and universities, in finance and business, to induce us to commit suicide, bodily, spiritually, financially and nationally, for them as do the Anglophiles and World Jewry, I would feel an equal duty to warn our patriotic Americans of that danger to us, our sons, our security and our form of government. The Democratic Party of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, M o n roe, Jackson and Cleveland no longer exists. It has been scuttled for 5

the internationalism and socialism of a Roosevelt, a Frankfurter, a Morgenthau, a Cohen, a Wilson, a House, a Brandeis, and a Baruch, with the recent assistance of the Southern Bourbons and Anglophile Democrats. A "fifth column" of Eastern Seaboard Republican Tories and Anglophiles, big banks, big business and most of W a l l Street are plotting to control the Republican Party, to dictate its nominee and destroy any candidate who puts the safety of America first. They are plotting to control the Republican platform for a milk and water resolution against sending our sons to Europe, without any declaration against financing England and France's war or against other steps short of war, which will necessarily lead to war. It is doubtful whether the Republican Party regardless of who is its nominee, or what is its platform, can win against the New Deal, the Jewish monopoly of press and radio, and the money of the Tories, Jews and A n glophiles; but it is certain that it can not win by endorsing Roosevelt's international policies. The Republican party can not evade the issue. It was defeated in 1916 when its presidential candidate was dubbed Charles "Evasive" Hughes because of his unwillingness to let the people know his position in reference to our entrance into the European war. If, despite press and radio, the Republicans will take a message to American homes, to fathers and mothers, to sons and daughters, to the common people of America, not only against sending our sons but against financing the war, and any and all other steps that will lead to war, it will make a creditable showing in the elections and return the Republican Party to a party of Lincoln for the plain people. When the maimed and dead are brought back, if we are permitted to vote and be a democracy, the Republican Party, assuming it remains true to America, will be swept into power by a tidal wave of resentment against alien influences and for true Americanism. The Republican leaders and candidates for President, with two or three exceptions, are cowering, retracting, qualifying or superficial in their defense of America against the war mongers. They permit the Jewish press and radio and the hatchet men of the New Deal to slander and revile Johnson, Lindbergh, Ford, or any other patriotic American who dares open his mouth on behalf of our people against steps leading us straight to war. Republican candidates boldly and enthusiastically say that they are opposed to sending our boys to fight on Europe's soil, but so does Roosevelt now. I don't trust him, and the Republicans, with two or three exceptions, ring neither true nor brave. The writer is distressed at the attitude and utterances of Protestant Bishops and clergy, of Presidents of universities, Professors and teachers, especially those within the influence of the city of New 6

York. Is the boast of Rabbi Lewis Browne "that Protestantism is shaking off the religion about Christ", the truth? Have the cathedrals and churches of the rich and fashionable become temples and synagogues, the stronghold of "the money-changers and them that sold doves", wherein resound the thunderings of Israel's vengeful, warlike Yahweh (Jehovah)? Have they silenced the voice and betrayed the soul of Christ? Have Christian preachers and teachers discarded the teachings of the meek, lowly and loving Christ and His Sermon on the Mount, for the hatreds, vengeance, and wars of the Old Testament? Are they like Job's warhorse? — "He smelleth the battle afar off", and shouts "Ha, H a " . A neighbor recently asked me why our ministers, college presidents, teachers and old men are so often sadists. I could not answer. May I be permitted to warn the Christian clergy and teachers that our participation in the last war wrecked not merely the body but also demoralized the soul of our youth, led to a loss of faith, drunkenness, immorality, the destruction of American home life and the Christian tradition of the sanctity of marriage. The youth of our beloved America, despite insistent propaganda of fear and hate, are asking whether Jews, politicians, the press, the radio, big business, Wall Street, clergy and teachers, who are advocating and preaching war, which means the loss of millions of their lives on foreign soil, are their friends or their enemies. Have they covenanted for "thirty pieces of silver?" May I give the thoughts, if not the words, of our fine, patriotic young America? When New York City, that alien cesspool, that foreign city, that vulgar, purse-proud Babylon, with its slimy, lecherous, grasping tentacles reaching for pelf into every city and village of our land, through its Great Sanhedrin of press, pulpit and President, its money-changers and "economic royalists," its army of gangsters, its Murder Incorporated, its scandal vendors, racketeers, abortionists, and white slavers, its monarchs of smut, its Jew radios and suggestive movies, its big business and Anglophiles, its indecent shows and sly orations, its blatant demagogues, its warmongers, its corrupt politicians and its grafting office-holders, has flattered and threatened a timid, spineless and unresisting Congress into a declaration of war, we will enlist at once for the supreme sacrifice under the Stars and Stripes even on foreign soil; but when the war is over our families and friends, the common people of the true America, will remember and hold sternly responsible for 7

the "deep damnation of our taking off", our real foes, operating behind closed doors in the White House, the Halls of State, and the curtained, paneled palaces and citadels of New York and Washington. We say to you despite your treachery and cupidity, your love of aliens and alien ideas, we will not allow our country to be disgraced. When the flags fly and the bands play, we shall enlist at once and fight as bravely as did our ancestors. Y o u know and we know there is no such thing as a half-way war. If we fight, we must and should win at any cost. When you palaver, and deceive, and cheat, and trick, and shout this country into war for your alien friends, war-mongers, foreign allies and cushioned pashas, you who are too old to fight, you who will secure for your sons easy berths far from the front, we shall enlist and fight and suffer and die for America. We shall say "morituri te salutamus", but when our maimed, tortured or dead bodies return, our relatives, friends, associates and real America w i l l call to mind your honeyed words, your greed, your concealed cruelty, and will hold you to strict accountability, as meriting the severest punishment that our country can inflict, because you made us fight not for our America, but for your sordid foreign interests, your love of power. A n d to you, M r . President, we say: Neither you nor any of your Roosevelt ancestors has ever fought in any war for America, notwithstanding they have lived in and off New York City, since Colonial days, as big merchants and money-changers. We tell you we want to live and be happy, to delve, to work, to succeed, to fail, to fall, to rise, to know the uses of adversity, to "breast the blows of circumstance", to have our homes, however humble; to provide for our wives and children, to rear our sons, to aid and comfort our sick, poor and helpless without regard to race, creed or color, to serve Christ and country free from Europe's incessant strife, to seek the pathways of the just, to do our bit for humanity and America, and to defend our native land to the last drop of blood: but we and our posterity demand freedom from tribal wars on foreign soil and the right to have our say as to whether we die on the Rhine and become Europe's cannon fodder. We deny your right by sly parallel understandings and secret negotiations, aided by press, radio, war-mongers, fellow travelers and foreign scum, who have become our arrogant, demanding guests, to traffic in our blood, birthright and security. "Lord, God of Hosts, be with us yet, lest we forget — lest we forget." The one who signs a pseudonym to these pages will be accused of cowardice for so doing. Say rather that on behalf of his loved ones he is prudent. Such is the power and extent of Jewish control in this 8

country to-day that a free discussion of the Jewish question — however unbiased — is utterly impossible. The writer knows that to openly take the lead in such discussion would be to invite ridicule, slander and reprisals of the most bitter and dangerous nature, and, what is most significant, that these reprisals would be directed, as under Trotsky and Stalin, against those near and dear to himself. He is convinced, nevertheless, that the evidence must be presented. If it results in a dispassionate examination of the problem, great good may yet follow. We propose to prove, upon facts based upon records of indisputable authority, often out of their own mouths, or from sources friendly to them, that the influence of most of the Jews, in combination with certain wealthy Americans, has been substantially contrary to the morals, welfare and security of the American people. We also believe, in the words used by Benjamin Franklin, that Roosevelt and New York City are: "Enleagu'd with friends of that detested tribe, Whose god is gold, whose savior is a bribe." Has Roosevelt the voice of Jacob, but the hands of Esau? The safety of the lives, the fortunes, the liberties of the people under a Republican form of government demand that no one man, whether a McKinley, a Wilson, or a Roosevelt, be permitted to quarantine foreign governments, enter into secret agreements or parallel understandings with them, or take steps short of war which may lead to war and imperil our very existence, without the knowledge and consent of a bi-partisan body of Senators and Congressmen, and this should be expressly prohibited by a Constitutional amendment. I believe this pamphlet to be absolutely true and accurate, but I must apologize for its form and style since the time is urgent, the crisis is at hand. The great middle-class, the hard-working, honest, perhaps too easy-going and good-natured American public, holds in its sturdy hands the destinies of this nation. W i l l they protect themselves, their sons, their financial security and their liberty against Roosevelt, New York City, organized World Jewry, Congress, Communism, high finance, big business and Anglophiles or will they continue to sleep — perchance the sleep of death? "Here I stand — I cannot do otherwise, God help me." CINCINNATUS



WORLD JEWRY IS AN ORGANIZED NATIONALITY " T H E M A N WITHOUT A COUNTRY. B Y EDWARD E V E R E T T H A L E "Let us all recognize that we J e w s are a D i s t i n c t N a t i o n a l i t y o f w h i c h every J e w , w h a t e v e r h i s c o u n t r y , his station or shade of belief is necessarily a m e m b e r * * * " O r g a n i z e , Organize, O r g a n i z e — until every Jew in America must stand up and be counted — counted with us — or prove himself, wittingly or unwittingly, of the few who are against their own people." From an address delivered in June, 1915, before the Eastern Council of the Central Conference of Reform Rabbis, by Justice Louis D. Brandeis. The Red Torch of Internationalism has been thrown to Dr. Nahum Goldmann, a British Rabbi, Chairman of the Administrative Committee of the World Jewish Congress, who was invited to address that Congress at Washington, in February, 1940. He said that his ideas were "of a radical and revolutionary character", and proceeded to state: "But either Europe will be recognized on a revolutionary basis or it will not survive. Once the sovereign State is no longer recognized, once international moral laws control and limit the sovereignty of the States, the way will be paved for real safeguards of citizens' rights and of the rights of minority groups. The whole conception of majorities and minorities may get a different aspect." * * * "You are not only the strongest Jewry of the world numerically, not only the most powerful Jewry of the world politically, socially and economically. * * * "The same applies to American Jewry within the more limited field of its possibilities and tasks, if it will be dominated by the feeling of solidarity with European Jewry, realizing that its future is linked up with the future of European Jewry because we are one people." New York Times, February 11, 1940. Study carefully these two quotations from recognized and accepted leaders in World Jewry. They disclosed a perilous truth. Their declarations have not and will not be repudiated by American Jewry. They clearly 10

mean: That the Jew, in whatever country he lives, whatever his position in life may be, whether he is a professing Jew, Christian, Atheist, or Agnostic, capitalist, millionaire, or peddler, Communist or Anarchist, permanently retains a Distinct Nationality of his own, and does not become a true American, an Englishman, a German, etc.; that the Jews do not honestly accept citizenship in the United States, but remain Distinct Jewish Nationals, one people, organized and solid.



JEWS AND THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR SHYLOCK " Y o u may as well go stand upon the beach, A n d bid the main flood bate his usual height; Y o u may as well use question with the wolf, Why he hath made the ewe bleat for the lamb; * * * * * Y o u may as well do anything most hard, As seek to soften that—than which what's harder?— His Jewish heart:" "The Merchant of Venice"—Shakespeare. In the darkest hours of the American Revolution, Benjamin Franklin was sent to Europe to raise funds for the struggling Colonies. The efforts of the patriots to throw off the British yoke were sabotaged at every turn. The Tidewater blue-bloods of Virginia, the rich and aristocratic Philadelphians, the merchants, bankers and traders of New York and the purse-and-class-proud Bostonians were working and plotting for England against their middle-class fellowcountrymen. Writing from Passy to John Adams regarding his efforts to obtain a loan through a Jewish banker in Holland, Franklin said: November 26, 1781 "It seems to me that it is principally with M r . Neufville we have to do; and tho' I believe him to be as much a Jew as any in Jerusalem, I did not expect that with so many and such constant Professions of Friendship for the United States with which he loads all his Letters, he would have attempted to inforce his Demands (which I doubt not w i l l be extravagant enough) by a Proceeding so abominable." "The Writings of Benjamin Franklin" V o l . 8. The MacMillan Co. P. 332. December 14, 1781 " B y this time, I fancy, your Excellency is satisfy'd that I was wrong in supposing J. de Neufville as much a Jew as any in Jerusalem, since Jacob was not content with any per cents, but took the whole of his Brother Esau's Birthright, and his Posterity did the same by the Canaanites, and cut their Throats into the Bargain; which, in my Conscience, I do not think M r . J. de Neufville has the least Inclination to do by us.—while he can get anything by our being alive." Ibid. P. 345. 12

The complaint which Franklin made of de Neufville was "Shylockery", since de Neufville demanded as security for the proposed loan not only the Thirteen Colonies themselves, but all their "income, revenue and produce" until the loan was repaid, with interest. In his Pulitzer Prize biography, Benjamin Franklin, Carl Van Doren is at great pains to deny the existence of the oft-discussed Pinckney notes of what Franklin is supposed to have said at the Constitutional Convention, allegedly containing a denunciation of the Jews, but V a n Doren ignored the above letters and subsequent poem. We do not publish the Pinckney notes because we have no proof of their authenticity. In another letter from Franklin to Lafayette (see The Works of Benjamin Franklin, compiled by John Bigelow. V o l . 8, P. 234), Franklin discusses Benedict Arnold's treachery and compares him with Judas. He encloses a poem (Ibid. P. 240), which describes Arnold as: "Enleagu'd with friends of that detested tribe, Whose god is gold, whose savior is a bribe, Could basely join, his country to betray." Benedict Arnold's aide was Major David Solesbury Franks, a young Jewish merchant of Montreal. Arnold's dealings with the British were investigated in Philadelphia before he was given command at West Point. Franks is described in Benedict Arnold, by Charles Sellers, (P. 197) in the following words: "Behind its pretentious white portals, guarded by a smartly presented musket of a Continental soldier, a new commercial establishment came into being. Franks and his chief had already agreed on a partnership, and Franks had been the first in the city, bearing unsigned instructions from Arnold for the purchase of European and East India goods to any amount, a promise to see to the payment, and a strict charge that he preserve the greatest secrecy in the matter." " O f the General's staff, Franks was wisely noncommittal." P. 208. "It was the particular duty of Franks to act as escort and guard of honor for Mrs. Arnold. He came to be known among the intimates of the family as 'the nurse.' " P. 217. "There was every reason to believe that the goods brought from Egg Harbor had come by sea from New York, and the pursuers believed they had discovered evidence of a treasonable correspondence. A Miss Levy, suspected of being an emissary of the enemy, had gone through the lines on a pass from Arnold. Arnold was asked to explain, and refused." P. 209. 13

Franks was living and dining in Army headquarters at West Point, with Arnold and his wife, while Arnold was engaged in treasonable activities with General Sir Henry Clinton, through his aide, Major Andre. P. 240. After Arnold's escape on board the British man-of-war, the Vulture, he wrote General Washington absolving Major Franks of complicity in his treason. P. 244. Franks was tried, among others, for sharing in the conspiracy "but proof could not be found." P. 246. While the soldiers of Washington were starving and naked at Valley Forge, while such patriots as Gen. Washington, C o l . Thomas Marshall, and his great son Capt. John Marshall, were resolutely throwing their all into the cause of the people, Rebecca Franks was enjoying herself in the lush atmosphere of Philadelphia about twenty miles away. Writing to the wife of an American patriot she says, " Y o u can have no idea of the life of continued amusement I live in. I can scarce have a moment to myself. I spent Tuesday evening at Sir William Howe's, where we had a concert and dance." Life of John Marshall P. 109, Beveridge, V o l . I. Sol Bloom, Jewish millionaire Chairman of the powerful House Foreign Relations Committee, who got his start in America exhibiting a "hoochy-coochy" dancer at the World's Fair in Chicago, belittles Washington's Farewell Address, and his memory, by the following statement: "But he was planning on quitting all the time. He wrote on that Farewell Address for four years. By the end of his second term he was so unpopular he couldn't have been elected dog-catcher, if he wanted the job, which he didn't." Washington Times-Herald, February 20, 1940. H A Y M SALOMON—JEW BROKER—SAVIOUR OF THE REVOLUTION? Numerous attempts have been made in the past hundred years to collect—through Congress—large sums said to be due Haym Salomon for monies which, the claimants contended, Salomon had advanced the Colonial Government to finance the Revolution. Principal spokesmen for these claimants in recent years have been the Federation of Polish Jews in America, headed by Benjamin Winter and Z. Tygel. So potent was this group that they "misled" President Franklin D. Roosevelt, former Mayor James J. Walker of New York, Governor Herbert H. Lehman, President Wilson, President Taft, Chief Justice Hughes, Senators McKellar, Copeland, Wagner, 14

Caraway, Davis and Vandenberg, Congressmen Perlman, Dickstein and Sirovich, Ralph Pulitzer, Adolph Lewisohn, Samuel Untermyer, Gov. Nathan Miller, George Medalie, President William Green of the A. F. of L . , Rev. S. Parkes Cadman, Dr. Henry Moskowitz, Herman Bernstein and numerous others into endorsing their claims either directly or indirectly. It was proposed to erect fitting' memorials, magnificent monuments to Haym Salomon in New Y o r k City. So vigorous was their campaign before the public and the Congressional Claims Committee, that certain other American Jews, aware of the true nature of Haym Salomon's services to the Revolution, actively opposed their claims. On February 26, 1931, Max James Kohler, prominent Jewish lawyer, official of various Jewish bodies and vice-president of the American Jewish Historical Society, wrote Congressman Emanuel Celler of New York a long and detailed report in what was intended to be an open letter on the subject of the claims made in behalf of Salomon. Alarmed at the imminent possibility that investigation would prove the claims to be unjustified to the point of being fraudulent, Kohler cited a mass of evidence showing that Salomon, far from having been 'the Financier of the Revolution' was little more than a broker for Robert Morris, the true financial genius of the Revolution, and that, for his services, Salomon had been paid as brokers are usually paid — by a commission on all transactions in which he had a hand. Stating that he had in his possession information which would "put an end, once and for all, to efforts to collect * * * hundreds of thousands of dollars claimed by the descendants of Haym Salomon, as due them from an 'ungrateful' country", Kohler thoroughly demolished the claims made by the Federation of Polish Jews. Says Kohler: "Salomon's financial connection with the U. S. Government began only a few months before the Battle of Yorktown on Oct. 19th, 1781 in effect ended the War in our favor * * While we were in sore financial straits in 1781, the War would nevertheless have been won by us, had Haym Salomon never lived, and Russell's (Charles Edward Russell, Socialist writer who did a laudatory biography of Salomon) effort to depict him as practically the saviour of our country is absurd * * * " Kohler's conclusions, based on the evidence, are that: "Haym Salomon never lent the Government a substantial sum, probably not even one cent, despite the claims to the contrary advanced by certain of his descendants, in their own interest * * *" 15

and that: "The favorable reports of Committees of Congress have—I regret to say — rested on misinformation, and I fear deliberate concealment, if not worse, on the part of Haym M. Salomon (a son of Haym Salomon, who first tried to make good the claims), or his agents, who misled the Congressional Committees." Kohler adds: "President Coolidge was even recently misled into saying * * * that he (Haym Salomon) negotiated for Robert Morris all the loans raised in France and Holland (for our struggling country) * * * The fact is that Haym Salomon as broker 'negotiated' the drafts representing a fraction of these loans * * * and someone cleverly confused the words 'loans' and 'drafts' in one of the Congressional reports in question in order to give an entirely erroneous and exaggerated impression of what Haym Salomon actually did." Haym Salomon was a Polish Jew. He arrived in America in about 1772 and married Rachel Franks, a daughter of Moses Franks of New York. Rachel Franks was related to Jacob Franks, commissary to the British during the French and Indian War, David Franks of Philadelphia, and the latter's daughter Rebecca, who married General Sir Henry Johnson. Other relatives were the aforementioned David Solesbury Franks and Colonel Issaac Franks. W i t h these connections plus "a knowledge of languages and a flair for business", says Kohler, Salomon was able to float about $200,000 worth of securities for Robert Morris, Superintendent of Finance of the Colonial Government. Morris allowed Salomon to call himself "Broker to the Office of Finance" and so records in his diary. Salomon was arrested by the British after the capture of New York in 1776, but was released at the request of the Hessian-British service in August 1778. He made his way to Philadelphia where, shortly, his association with Robert Morris began. Despite the Kohler report—which, it must be said, is exceedingly difficult to find in our usually well-stocked libraries (there is a copy in the Congressional Library)—persistent and loud-mouthed efforts to persuade the American people that Haym Salomon was the 'Financier of the Revolution', and that the services of the Jews to the Colonial cause were unique and beyond ordinary value, continue unabated to this very day. As recently as in A p r i l , 1940, the Jewish comedian, Jack Pearl, celebrated his debut as a dramatic artist by 16

appearing on a radio program in the role of Haym Salomon and portraying the magnitude of his achievements as 'Financier of the Revolution'. Not a word about the Kohler disclosures. As usual, the unsuspecting American has fallen for the Savior Salomon legend as the result of a deluge of blatant propaganda in the press, magazines and over the radio. Though Kohler does not press the point, his alarm at the prospect that Haym Salomon would be 'deflated' by any investigation worthy of the name, seems to have influenced the writing of his intended open letter to Congressman Celler. Such 'deflation' undoubtedly would injure the cause of those Jews who wish to argue that their race has always been transcendently American and patriotic. If Congressman Celler has ever divulged this letter we have been unable to discover it. In C O L L I E R ' S of May 11, 1940, Dr. D. H. Dubrovsky, himself a Trotskyite Jew and one-time intimate brother-revolutionary of Lenin, Trotsky, Zinovieff and the group of Communist Jews who overthrew the Romanoffs and murdered the Czar and his family, describes the efforts of the Stalinist Communists to persuade him to collect from the American Government several million dollars allegedly due the heirs of one Haym Salomon, celebrated by American Jews to-day as the "Financier of the Revolution." At that time, Dubrovsky was head of the Soviet Red Cross in the United States. He subsequently quarreled with his superiors in Moscow and is now conducting a wordy warfare with Stalin. As Werner Sombart, himself a Jew, shows in The Jew and Modern Capitalism, Wars are the Jew's Harvests. They are invariably represented in the camps of enemy and friend alike and due to their close blood and world community, are able to traffic at will with each other and without regard for national interest.



AMERICAN TORIES IN THE WAR OF 1812 "O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave— O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave." Francis Scott Key. The propaganda for getting us into war is no new thing. It wasn't new in 1915-16. As a matter of fact the American people got their first dose of it several years before the War of 1812. It is surprising how much the British propaganda of those days resembles that which is now bombarding us. England was fighting France in those days—from 1802 and after—and Napoleon, not Hitler, was the bugaboo. John Adams wrote: "Our Gazettes and Pamphlets tell us that Bonaparte . . . will conquer England, and command all the British Navy, and send I know not how many hundred thousand soldiers here and conquer from New Orleans to Passamaquoddy. Though every one of these bugbears is an empty Phantom yet the People seem to believe every article of this bombastical Creed and tremble and shudder in Consequence. Who shall touch these blind eyes?" "Life of John Marshall" by Beveridge, V o l . 4. ps. 15-16. "They were sure that Napoleon intended to subjugate the world; and that Great Britain was our only bulwark against the aggressions of the Conqueror . . . " Ibid. p. 2. There was the same wild talk those days about how necessary an English victory was to American interests. "Great Britain is fighting our battles and the battles of mankind, and France is combatting for the power to enslave and plunder us and all the world." Ibid. p. 5. So wrote Fisher Ames in November 1803. According to Beveridge, in his Life of John Marshall, the American pro-British propagandists were saying: "If that Power (France) 'swayed' by that satanic genius. Napoleon, should win, would she not take Nova Scotia, Canada, Louisiana, the Antilles, Florida, South America? After these conquests, would not the United States, 'the only remaining republic', be conquered." Ibid. p. 46. 18

In harmony with their consistent conduct, the Tories, wealth, society, big business and finance of New England and New Y o r k sought to tie our destinies with England. Thomas Jefferson and those patriots who put the interests of America first did not fall for this British propaganda. They had a sounder judgment, a truer patriotism and a wider knowledge of European politics than do today the Anglophiles on the Atlantic Seaboard. He saw what England was trying to do. "The English," he said, "being equally tyrannical at sea as he (Bonaparte) is on land, and that tyranny bearing on us in every point of either honor or interest, I say, 'down with England,' and as for what Bonaparte is then to do to us, let us trust to the chapter of accidents. I cannot, with the Anglomen, prefer a certain present evil to a future hypothetical one." Jefferson's Works, Ford. ps. 483-484. By 1812, the British, who a few years before, had begged and plotted to draw us into their war against Napoleon and failed, were, to quote Professor Channing: "Inciting the Indians to rebellion, impressing American seamen and making them serve on British warships, closing the ports of Europe to American commerce . . . " and Henry Adams said: "The United States had a superfluity of only too good causes for war with Great Britain." When at last we got our fill of such business and began to prepare to fight, the pro-British Americans were guilty of everything they are doing today. There was talk of rebellion against the Federal Government, and, says Beveridge, ' Withdrawal from the Union was openly advocated." New England, in particular, fought for the British interests and talk of secession was steadily growing. The Prime Minister of England selected, as British Minister to the United States an overbearing Britisher, Francis James Jackson. Jackson regarded our President Madison as plain and rather "mean looking". To him Americans were all alike, except that some were "less knaves than others". The American mob, according to His Majesty's Minister, was "by many degrees more blackguard and ferocious than the mob in other countries." He charged our Secretary of State with lying. Bailey's Diplomatic History of the American People, ps. 126, 127. After the war with England of 1812 was declared, the Boston papers declared that it was not the "duty of an American to shed his blood * * * for Madison or Jefferson and that host of ruffians in Congress, * * * New England defiantly withheld her troops from service, 19

sold an enormous quantity of provisions to the British invader, and in other ways hampered the American Cause." Ibid. P. 141. England and France were engaged in a war of claw and fang. His Royal Majesty's frigate, the Leopard, before any declaration of war, made a treacherous and murderous attack on our ship, the Chesapeake, in June, 1807, ten miles off the Virginia Coast. "When the bloody hulk that was the Chesapeake limped back to Norfolk with a tale of humiliation, an unparalleled wave of indignation swept over America. * * The Washington Federalist was similarly impressed: 'We have never, * * witnessed the spirit of the people excited to so great a degree of indignation * * on hearing of the * * unexampled outrage * *. A l l parties, ranks, and professions were unanimous in their detestation of the dastardly deed, and all cried aloud for revenge. * * The chauvinistic press of England, * * applauded the Leopard's treatment of what it called the cowardly Yankees.' " Ibid. ps. 116, 117. The British by force removed our seamen from our ships and cast thousands of them into English prisons. In the infamous English penitentiary at Dartmouth, from 1812 to 1816, thousands of them were incarcerated and they suffered through dreadful winters for want of sufficient food and clothing. An American representative was accused by these prisoners of buying for them clothing "of a Jew merchant of London far below the value to enrich himself". See Appendix to The Scene Changes, by Sir Basil Thomson. After the battle of Bladensburg the British burned the Capitol, the President's house, the Congressional Library, the Navy Yard, and other public buildings. They destroyed private property, including houses built for General Washington on the brow of Capitol H i l l , property belonging to Daniel Carroll of Duddington, the library, types and printing presses of a newspaper, and other private property. They maliciously mutilated and defaced a monument that had been erected to our heroes in the war with Tripoli. His Majesty's Admiral Cockburn exhibited in the streets a gross levity of manner, displaying sundry articles of trifling value which he had taken from the President's house, and repeated many coarse jests and reproaches respecting our President. "The Invasion and Capture of Washington", by Williams, pages 265 to 270, inclusive. 20

Surgeon-General Richard Rush stated: " * * * The memory of the burning of Washington can not be obliterated. The subject is inseparable from great international principles and usages. It never can be thought of by an American, and ought not to be thought of by an enlightened Englishman, but in conjunction with the deplorable and reprehensible scenes I recall. It was no trophy of war for a great nation. History can not so record it. Our infant metropolis at that time had the aspect of merely a straggling village but for the size and beauty of its public buildings. Its scattered population scarcely numbered eight thousand; it had no fortresses or sign of any; not a cannon was mounted." Ibid., 276, 277. There is now on an active campaign by the Jews, through press, radio and publishing houses, to substitute "God Bless America", composed by Irving Berlin, a Jew born in Russia under the name of Baline, for "The Star Spangled Banner". As a part of the campaign to destroy our faith in the Founding Fathers and their institutions, especially non-intervention in European wars, there have been recently published and extolled at least three books, by T o r y controlled publishing houses, which slander Washington, Franklin, Adams and other Revolutionary patriots, and praise Benedict Arnold and Conway, of the infamous Conway cabal. These vilifications of our noble dead are essential to the consummation of the New York City, New England, Anglophile, Jewish plot:—"Union N o w " with England.



THE CHINESE OPIUM WARS AND BRITISH-JEWS "A hell-hound that doth hunt us all to death: That dog, that had his teeth before his eyes, To worry lambs and lap their gentle blood, That foul defacer of God's handiwork, That excellent grand tyrant of the earth. That reigns in galled eyes of weeping souls, T h y womb let loose, to chase us to our graves." Richard III, Act I V , Scene I V . In Shanghai: City for Sale, ps. 6-7, published in 1940 by Harcourt-Brace & Co., New York, we read: "This British desire for a wider sphere of operations precipitated Britain's first war with China" (in 1842). "It was called the 'Opium War' because the British urge to swamp China with India-grown opium and Chinese refusal to take it were its tangible cause. "There is no doubt about the wanton aggression that marked the beginning of this undeclared war, nor about the singular brutality with which the British soldiers sacked peaceful cities, burned public buildings, looted, plundered and murdered . . . There was much ruthless bayoneting. Sacred temple quarters were soiled, exquisite wood carvings were used for camp fires. And British soldiers watched old men, women and even children cutting each other's throats in utter despair, or drowning themselves. 'The lament of the fatherless, the anarchy, the starvation, and the misery of the homeless wanderers', says the East India Committee of the Colonial Society in London in 1843, 'are the theme of a frightful triumph.' " The famous Sassoon family, probably the most influential Jewish family in England today and one of the few intimate with the last three generations of the Royal Family, established their wealth and power in the Opium Wars. "* * * David Sassoon began with a rug factory and banking establishment, but he soon recognized the opportunities in opium . . . deft maneuvering netted him the most 22

valuable prize an Indian merchant could strive for—a monopoly of the opium trade." * * * "David's sons were bright. There was Elias, the first Sassoon to go out to the China Seas. He went over as early as 1844, in the wake of the Opium War which had given British traders the right to dump into China all the opium India and the Near East could grow. Selling the drug to 400,000,000 customers, Elias was spectacularly successful." American Mercury, January 1940, p. 61. Sir Edward Sassoon, the second baronet (Albert Abdullah's son, born in Bombay in 1856) married Baron Gustave de Rothschild's daughter. He resided in London and became a major in the Duke of Cambridge's Hussars Yeomanry; his daughter Sybil married the fifth Marquis of Cholmondely; King Edward V I I considered him a friend; and the burghers of Hythe sent him into the House of Commons." Ibid. p. 63. "It was the time of the great opium trade. The poppy fields of India and the Near East yielded a golden harvest, and British ships brought the sweet-smelling product to China's distant ports. David Sassoon was rich and powerful." Shanghai: City for Sale, p. 275. "Most of the immense Sassoon fortune, in fact, had been made in the opium trade. They had shipped the precious drug from India to Shanghai, and they had cleared millions of pounds. The old firm of E. D. Sassoon had been prominent in Shanghai's famous opium combine. Shanghailanders were familiar with the name. The Sassoons had drawn much money out of Shanghai; if Sir Victor was to bring all that money back to the Settlement, there was a certain measure of retributive justice in his move." Ibid. ps. 274-275. " N o one knew how much money Sir Victor carried in his hip pocket when he landed in Shanghai (1931). Some said eighty-five million: others, three hundred * * * He invested. He bought. He bought everything that could be had for money and plenty could be had for money, in Shanghai. * * * He took over the vast Nanking Road holdings of Silas Aaron Hardoon. * * * He accepted the chairmanship in his family's old establishment, E. D. Sassoon & Co., Ltd., bankers, merchants, industrialists. He controlled the Yangtze Finance Company and the International Investment Trust." Ibid., p. 277. "The Sassoon pedigree goes back to King David," and "Sir Victor was the white boss of Shanghai," says the American Mercury of January 1940. This Sir Victor Sassoon recently arrived in the United States with éclat, issued a series of belligerent challenges to the Japanese, 23

and indicated a strong desire to involve the United States in a program, which could not fail to protect his Far Eastern interests, while simultaneously endangering our peace and that of China. The New York Sun of February 2, 1940, gives an interesting account of the Sassoon family and of Sir Victor Sassoon in particular: " * * This old-established firm also has been deep in the swirl of international politics and knows its way around the world and down through the centuries. Sir Victor Sassoon, British financier, arriving in San Francisco from the Orient, says, ' Y o u Americans have got Japan absolutely cold, and all business people in Japan know it.' He was talking about the voiding of the trade treaty and Japan's dependence on American imports. "During most of the nineteenth century, the Sassoons built a vast fortune in India, principally in cotton, jute, textiles and shellac. In 1929, political unrest in India caused Sir Victor to shift base, as the family has done, through the centuries, in Toledo, Venice, Salonika, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Safed and Bagdad. He put over some big, fast deals in silver, branched out in real estate and is now known as the wealthiest white man in the Far East. His interests include banks, mills, textiles, hotels, wharves, liquor-importing companies, laundries, bus lines and night clubs." During the recent Municipal elections in Shanghai, when the Japanese attempted to increase their membership on the Governing Council, a "mysterious" individual possessed of enormous real estate holdings in Shanghai, effected a coup by breaking up his holdings into 1,200 component parts, thus increasing the British dominance of the Council. No one but Sir Victor Sassoon owned enough Shanghai real estate to accomplish this. Considering the recent revival of interventionist talk on the Far Eastern problem, let us regard the words of Boake Carter and Thomas Healy in their book, Why Meddle in the Orient, (ps. 17 to 28, inc.) Dr. Thomas Healy is a distinguished scholar, teacher and Dean of the Foreign Service School of the old and noted Georgetown U n i versity in the Nation's Capital. "They demanded not only more trade on terms more advantageous to themselves, but demanded even a vicious contraband trade. Thus we come to the most sordid of historic narratives—the Opium War of 1839—as a result of which the Western World first forced its w i l l and desires upon China and, over her prostrate form, extracted those 'sacred' treaty rights, about which the statesmen have said so much lately. "Few Americans realize that, while opium is always as24

sociated with the Chinese, actually China used little or no opium until its use was forced upon them in huge quantities by the British Government and its agents in India. "The growing and sale of Indian opium was a British Government monopoly, which poured a golden stream of profits into the British Treasury. The British agents foresaw even greater profits if the defenceless Chinese were made to absorb more Indian opium. The Chinese Government, fully realizing the degenerative qualities of this drug, bitterly protested. It attempted to bar its importation, sale and use. The British ignored the ban, whereupon the Chinese Government, in desperation, seized large quantities of British opium stored in Canton warehouses. Promptly Britain's Royal Navy went into action and the Opium War was on. "Cries of indignation have rent the air over recent events in the Far East, with most of the crying being done by London and Washington. * * * There was no declaration of war by the British Government. There was no official explanation given to the public, other than that the Chinese had flaunted the British prestige, property and flag. * * * "Dictating the Treaty of Nanking, 1842, closing the Opium War, Great Britain compelled the Chinese to pay an indemnity of $21,000,000, of which $6,000,000 was reimbursement for the destroyed opium — destroyed by the C h i nese when the British insisted on forcing it into China against the latter's will. * * * "It was only through the debauchery of China in the Opium War that Britain directly, and the United States indirectly, obtained their 'sacred' treaty rights to establish themselves in the great port of Shanghai against the wishes of the Chinese people. "The crowning point * * * was the fact that the Treaty of Nanking never touched the immediate cause of the war— the illegal importation of opium! The Chinese were made to pay for the war, but the illicit imports of the deadly weed continued to flow unabated, to the moral and physical decay of millions of Chinese, and to the great financial profit of the British Government. "This war nauseated most historians, including British men of letters. Justin McCarthy declared: 'Reduced to plain words, the principle for which we fought in the China War was the right of Great Britain to force a peculiar trade upon a foreign people, in spite of the protestations of the Government, and all such public opinion as there was, of the nation.' The great British statesman, Gladstone, declared: 'A war more unjust in its origins, a war more calculated to cover this country with permanent disgrace, I do not know and have not read of. The British flag is hoisted to protect an infamous traffic; and if it was never hoisted except as it is 25

now hoisted on the coast of China, we should recoil from its sight with horror'. * * "Many American traders had a profitable role in the opium traffic. A group of American merchants formally petitioned Congress to assist Great Britain, France and Holland with a naval demonstration. Our merchant group discreetly refrained from endorsing the illicit, degenerating opium traffic, but nobly insisted that other Chinese ports should be 'opened', and their trade there protected! "This was probably the first time that a formal request for military co-operation by the United States with Great Britain and other Western powers was proposed to achieve what was camouflaged as a common Far East objective. The same proposition has been made again in the past few months and doubtless will be made again. "The merchants' petition was discussed in Congress, March, 1840. The Hon. Caleb Cushing, who soon after negotiated our first treaty with China, declared: 'But God forbid that I should entertain the idea of co-operating with the British Government in the purpose, if purpose it has, in upholding the base cupidity and violence and high-handed infraction of all law, human and divine, which have characterized the operations of the British, individually and collectively, in the Seas of China . . . I trust the idea will no longer be entertained in England that she will receive aid or countenance from the United States in that nefarious enterprise'. "Thus was China 'opened' to the trade of the Western World. Thus were the 'rights' to reside and trade in Shanghai and other Chinese ports obtained. Thus was the first proposal for Anglo-American military co-operation in the Far East turned down by the United States." "The first Opium War led to more wars. In 1857-58, Great Britain was again one of the belligerents. This time she was aided by France. This war was known as the Second Opium War or the Arrow War." * * " A n d , once again, as in the first Opium War, there grew up a persistent drive in the United States and in Britain to inveigle America to join Britain and France in military operations in China." Foster quotes from our own official documents to show that the British were much disappointed when we made a compromise, peaceful settlement of a separate quarrel with the Chinese. The British secretly had hoped for U. S. aid in the war they were planning against the Chinese." (We are reminded here that London was much annoyed and disappointed—according to the New York Times—when the United 26

States settled the Panay incident without prior agreement with the British Government.) "The United States Government formally answered the British Government that military expeditions into Chinese territory could not be undertaken without consent of Congress; that U. S. relations with China did not warrant resort to war. M r . Reed, United States Minister to China, in conveying these advices to the Allies, officially reported their chagrin and dismay as they had been 'encouraged in the most extravagant expectation of co-operation on our part, to the extent even of acquisition of territory. * * * and that the English were especially irritable at their inability to involve the United States in their unworthy quarrel.'' Why Meddle in the Orient, p. 28. "A word here as to the British role in our acquisition of the Philippines is necessary to get a rounded picture of what Bemis calls, 'the greatest mistake in the history of American diplomacy.' "The British were very much worried that Germany would take over the Philippine Islands. As Germany was becoming a stronger rival of Britain in all parts of the world, this was the last thing the British wanted to happen. "Furthermore, the British wanted the United States to take a physical place in the Far East, where it might support British policy to keep China open to Western trade, which was predominantly British trade. If the British could maneuver us into not only an increasing trade stake but actual territory in the Far East, it would be much easier for Britain to obtain American co-operation in helping Britain preserve her Far Eastern stake, which was becoming more and more menaced by Germany and others. Ibid. p. 61. ". . . Simultaneously, Britain fought the Boer War. from 1899-1902, by which she annexed a large part of South Africa. War was narrowly averted between Great Britain and Germany, who favored the Boers. The Boer War was almost universally condemned throughout the world, except by the United States—the British reciprocated this friendly tolerance by being almost the only nation in the world that did not consider our war with Spain as an offense against civilization." Ibid. p. 68. Upon the same consideration and for the same reason the British favored our annexation of the Philippines. "It is astounding, but, nevertheless true, that not until 1928, thirty years after the event, were the American people able to learn how the Hay notes were prepared. Documents recently published show that in substance these notes fol27

lowed the draft of M r . Alfred E. Hippisley (a British subject formerly connected with the Chinese Customs Service) who worked through Hay's confidential advisor on Far Eastern affairs, W. W. Rockhill. The same two gentlemen were instrumental in formulating the later notes of 1900, leading to the implication of preserving Chinese territorial and administrative entity." (The Hay referred to was John Hay, American Secretary of State and father-in-law of Anglophile, war-mongering Congressman James Wadsworth, co-author of the Conscription Bill.) "This incident emphasizes two things which Americans as a whole have not known: First, the British initiative in establishing what was presumably an American policy; second, the failure (which is not unusual) to acquaint the American people with all the facts until many years after the event." Ibid. ps. 77-78. "* * Our troops have been kept in China under authority of an international agreement that was never submitted to the Senate or the Congress, or the people of the United States. * * They were put there and continued there largely through dictation of the Executive branch of the Government, even though Congress may not have raised the question and has passed general appropriations for our U. S. military forces without special comment." Ibid. p. 87. "When the Allies were hard pressed by the German submarine warfare, Japan obtained secret agreements from Great Britain (February, 1917), France (March. 1917), Russia (March, 1917), and later Italy, that they would support at the end of the war Japan's claims to Shantung and certain German islands which are now Japanese 'mandates'. "For reasons of understandable delicacy, the Allies carefully concealed these agreements from the United States, although they openly explained their secret agreements in reference to the general reconstruction (?) of the map of Europe. As the Allies slyly intended to use us as the instrument for bringing China into the war on their side, they possibly thought it best not to embarrass us in advance with the knowledge that arrangements had already been made to give a part of the territory of one A l l y , China, to another Ally, Japan . . . "In April, 1917, the United States joined the Allies in the conflict in Europe. * * Soon after we entered the World War we persuaded the Chinese Republic—which was badly battered by internal strife among the Chinese—to do likewise." Ibid. ps. 105-106. Thus we see that the identification of British-Jewish foreign policy with our Anglophile statesmen is no new thing. It is not likely that the American people understood then—or, for that matter, 28

understand today—that when we helped the British win the Opium Wars, defeat the Boers and implement their Far Eastern policy, and fought the World War, we were, in truth, pulling British-Jewish chestnuts out of the fire. That our miscalled "statesmen" must have suspected something of the sort, however, is evident in their efforts to conceal the truth from Congress and the people. See:

Why Meddle in the Orient, by Carter and Healy; Far Eastern Policy of the United States, by Griswold: A Diplomatic History of the United States, by Bemis. American Diplomacy in the Orient, by Foster.

Propaganda in the Next War by Sidney Rogerson, published in England under the auspices of the British Government and edited by the noted military expert, Captain Liddell Hart, contains instructions as to how England can win this war and involve the United States. He states: * * T o persuade her (America) to take our part will be much more difficult, so difficult as to be unlikely to succeed. It will need a definite threat to America, a threat, moreover, which will have to be brought home by propaganda to every citizen, before the republic will again take arms in an external quarrel. THE POSITION WILL NATURALLY BE CONSIDERABLY EASED IF JAPAN WERE INVOLVED AND THIS MIGHT AND PROBABLY WOULD BRING AMERICA IN WITHOUT FURTHER ADO. At any rate, it would be a natural and obvious object of our propagandists to achieve this, just as during the Great War they succeeded in embroiling the United States with Germany. (p. 148) Quoting a high government official in Amsterdam, Frazier Hunt, the famous correspondent says: "We are victims of our own busybody friends," he told me, "England would like nothing better than to drag America into the war through the back door. If the Allies are able to involve America in the Far East against Japan it would remove from the Allies the responsibility for checking Japan in China and fighting her in the event she should decide to join up with Germany. Feeding America the idea that Japan is planning an invasion of the Dutch East Indies fans bitterness which might break into flames." 29


JEWS AND OUR CIVIL WAR — ABRAHAM LINCOLN — " T h o u art the ruins of the noblest man That ever lived in the tide of the times. Woe to the hand that shed this costly blood! Over thy wounds now do I prophesy,— Which, like dumb mouths, do ope their ruby lips, To beg the voice and utterance of my tongue,—" Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar". The most prominent Jew on either side during our C i v i l War, was Judah P. Benjamin, born in the West Indies, a brilliant lawyer, Attorney General, Secretary of War and Secretary of State of the Confederacy. Writing about Benjamin's days as a student at Yale, Burton J. Hendrick in his Statesmen of the Lost Cause (1939) says: " A l l that we can say with any definiteness, at this late date, is that Benjamin left Yale, not of his own volition and not because of financial stringency; that his offense was so serious that the authorities declined to consider his request for a rehearing; that he himself misstated the reason for the separation; that the charge was made, in a responsible journal and by a college mate of standing, that he had been caught stealing from his fellow students; that Benjamin made no public denial of this charge; that all his life he showed a constant apprehension of a biography and destroyed all papers and documents that would facilitate inquiries into his past." P. 164. John Slidell, one-time fellow Senator of Judah P. Benjamin from Louisiana, became Confederate envoy to France soon after the Civil War began. Of him, Burton J . Hendrick says (Ibid. Ps. 292293): "Long before Slidell attained the Senate, * * in 1853— the word "Slidellian" had taken on a well-defined meaning. * * In this proceeding, Judah P. Benjamin was his associate, as in politics generally; and. justly or unjustly, the standing of both men suffered severely. * * * Benjamin and Slidell's biographers have been unable to discover the truth or falsity of these accusations, any more than they have proved, or disproved, similar scandals involving the Tehuantepec Railway, in which both Benjamin and Slidell were concerned." * * "His (Slidell's) ancestry contained perhaps a Jewish strain; at any rate, in Paris he became an intimate of leading 30

Jewish families. One to whom he was especially close was Emile Erlanger, head of the great French (Jewish) banking house of Erlanger et Cie. * * * Erlanger's son * * * fell in love with Slidell's daughter, the spirituelle Matilda, and, from that moment, Confederate and French relations present a romantic association of Hymen and haute finance. Erlanger was made the French intermediary in all Confederate transactions." Ibid. P. 220. "* * * the Erlanger loan (to the Confederacy) only one party found profitable. That was the banking house of Erlanger et Cie. Matilda Slidell's father-in-law emerged from the transaction with gains not far from $2,700,000. * * * It is a fair estimate that the Confederate Treasury obtained about $2,500,000 from a bond issue for which it had pledged payment * * * of $15,000,000 in capital and seven per cent in interest." Ibid. P. 231. Edwin de Leon, another Jew, was appointed Confederate publicity agent in Paris. Of him, Hendrick says (Ibid. P. 3 9 1 ) : "On leaving Richmond, the Secretary of State had given de Leon extremely confidential letters from Benjamin to Slidell. * * * Benjamin sought to bribe Napoleon III. into recognizing the Confederacy and breaking the blockade. On the voyage to France, de Leon opened and read these communications; when he presented the documents, with broken seals, to Slidell, that diplomat's anger knew no restraint." The Confederacy fell and the men who had fought a valiant fight for what they believed right were thrown into the even greater travail of the Reconstruction. Judah P. Benjamin, almost alone of the leaders of the South, forsook immediately the suffering people who had honored and enriched him, fled to England and was soon embarked upon a new career of distinction and wealth, reminiscent of others of his race dispossessed of their temporary cause and gains. Like Slidell, he never again saw American soil. " A t that moment," writes Hendrick (Ibid. P. 154), "another member of the Jewish race was rising to power in Great Britain. Benjamin Disraeli was rapidly advancing to the primacy of the British Cabinet—the same height to which his Secession compatriot reached in the Confederacy at an earlier day." Apparently the Jews from the North were a serious problem to the Union side during the Civil War. On Page 330 of Series One, Vol. X V I I , Part 11, of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, we find a communication from Major General U. S. Grant to Major General Hurlburt, then stationed at Jackson, Ten31

nessee. Writing at La Grange, Tennessee, on November 9, 1862, General Grant said: "Refuse all permits to come south of Jackson for the present. The Israelites especially should be kept out * * *" A n d again, on November 10, 1862, this time to General Webster at Jackson, Grant wrote: "Give orders to all the conductors on the road that no Jews are to be permitted to travel on the railroad from any point. They may go north and be encouraged in it: but they are such an intolerable nuisance that the department must be purged of them." Writing — on December 17, 1862 — from Headquarters of the Thirteenth Army Corps at Oxford, Mississippi, to the Assistant Secretary of War, C. P. Wolcott, General Grant said: "I have long since believed that in spite of all the vigilance that can be infused into post commanders, the specie regulations of the Treasury Department have been violated, and that mostly by Jews and other unprincipled traders. So well satisfied have I been of this that I instructed the commanding officer at Columbus to refuse all permits to Jews to come South, and I have frequently had them expelled from the department, but they come in with their carpet-sacks in spite of all that can be done to prevent it. The Jews seem to be a privileged class that can travel anywhere. They will land at any woodyard on the river and make their way through the country. If not permitted to buy cotton themselves they will act as agents for someone else, who will be at a military post with a Treasury permit to receive cotton and pay for it in Treasury notes, which the Jew will buy up at an agreed rate, paying gold." Apparently General Grant, a patient and tolerant individual, finally lost his patience. He issued General Order No. 11, as Commander of the 13th Army Corps, Department of the Tennessee: "The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled from the Department within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order. "Post commanders will see that all of this class of people be furnished passes and required to leave, and any one return32

ing after such notification will be arrested and held in confinement until an opportunity occurs of sending them out as prisoners, unless furnished with permit from headquarters. " N o passes will be given these people to visit trade headquarters for the purpose of making personal application for trade permits. " B y order of Maj. Gen. U. S. Grant: JNO. A. RAWLINS. Assistant Adjutant-General." The Jews, of course, protested and were influential enough even at that time and in the face of the orders of a respected Corps Commander, to make their protest effective. On January 4, 1863, the General-in-Chief, H. W. Halleck, addressed General Grant as follows: "A paper purporting to be General Order, No. 11, issued by you December 17, has been presented here. By its terms it expels all Jews from your department. If such an order has been issued, it will be immediately revoked." As a good soldier, there was nothing for Grant to do but obey, and on January 7, 1863, he revoked his order expelling the Jews from his department. At the same time other Union generals were complaining of the Jews. " T o Maj. Gen. John A. McClernand: The cotton speculators are quite clamorous for aid in getting their cotton away from Middleburg, Hickory Valley, etc., and offer to pay liberally for the service. I think I can bring it away with safety, and make it pay to the Government. As some of the Jew owners have as good as stolen the cotton from the planters, I have no conscientious scruples in making them pay liberally to take it away. L . F . ROSS. Brigadier General." In a letter written from Memphis, July 30, 1862, General W. T. Sherman says, in part: "I found so many Jews and speculators here trading in cotton, and secessionists had become so open in refusing anything but gold, that I have felt myself bound to stop it. The gold can have but one use—the purchase of arms and ammunition * * * Of course, I have respected all permits by yourself or the Secretary of the Treasury but in these new cases (swarms of Jews) I have stopped it." 33

A B R A H A M LINCOLN ASSASSINATED B Y JOHN WILKES BOOTH, A JEW "Hath borne his faculties so meek, hath been So clear in his great office, that his virtues W i l l plead like angels, trumpet-tongu'd, against The deep damnation of his taking-off." "Macbeth". The plot of John Wilkes Booth, a Jew, involved not only the assassination of Lincoln, which was accomplished, but also the assassination on the same night of the Vice President, Andrew Johnson, of the Secretary of State, William H. Seward, and of General Ulysses S. Grant. Seward, who was ill at his home, was stabbed, as was also his son, Frederick Seward, by David E. Herold, a co-conspirator with Booth, who was hanged. The Vice President Johnson escaped injury, but George A. Atzerodt was hanged for conspiring with Booth to kill him. General Grant, who was to have attended the theater with Lincoln that night, due to an unexpected departure for Burlington, New Jersey, was unharmed. Writing of John Wilkes Booth's ancestors, it is said in The Mad Booths of Maryland, page 16: "John Booth, a Jewish silversmith" (in London) "whose ancestors had been exiled from Portugal because of their radical political views. In London the refugees had continued their trade and free thinking, and John had married Wilkes' cousin. This Wilkes was the 'celebrated agitator John Wilkes of Westminster, London' ". Page 16. "John Wilkes Booth's father was Junius Brutus Booth." (Named after Julius Caesar's friendly assassin). Page 58. Southern people, especially the aristocrats, real or imaginary, it is said, are preponderantly in favor of entering this war viz: bankrupting this country and slaying our sons in Europe for "dear old England", because they think she was sympathetic to them in the war between the States. The fact is that the ruling classes in England were, at the beginning of the war between the States, in favor of helping the South, not because of any fondness for the South, but because the United States was at that time rivalling Great Britain on the high seas, over which the British claim exclusive ownership, and they felt that by breaking up the Union they would destroy this rivalry. The South should recollect that it was a fair-weather friendship. After the battle of Antietam, England cold-shouldered the South, and after Vicksburg and Gettysburg, England used her influence with France so that no further aid or comfort be given to the "Land of Dixie". 34


BRITISH JEWS AND THE BOER WAR "Gold — Gold — Gold — Gold Bright and yellow, hard and cold." Hood. As the Sassoons had attained wealth and power by English war gainst unoffending Chinese to compel them to buy opium, so the Joels, Barnatos, Oppenheimers, Rothschilds and other English Jews, induced Christian England to rob, starve in concentration camps, and murder the unoffending Boer farmers, men, women, and children, so that the English Jews could amass great fortunes in gold and diamonds and acquire English titles. This tribe of self-appointed leaders in humanitarian and anti-imperialistic movements throughout the world have always been identified with the fomenting of wars for profit and pelf. * * * there was added to it the great ordeal of the South African War, openly and undeniably provoked and promoted by Jewish interests in South Africa, when that war was so unexpectedly prolonged and proved so unexpectedly costly in blood and treasure * * * The Jews, Hilaire Belloc, p. 50. We are told that we should not refer to English brutality, in wars seventy-five years ago, because England has reformed. In 1901, only thirty-nine years ago, Lloyd George, afterwards Premier, speakING in Parliament, denounced the English in the Transvaal during the Boer War and quoted a Canadian officer, who told how "we move from valley to valley, lifting cattle and sheep, burning and looting, and turning out women and children to weep in despair beside the ruin of their once beautiful homesteads". Lloyd George produced a proclamation by Lord Roberts, head of the English forces, declaring, if the Boers should damage any of their railways or public works, the houses and farms of persons who resided in the vicinity would be destroyed and the residents dealt with under martial law. Lloyd George execrated, as brutal and disgraceful, a proclamation by an English General, which stated that the town of Venterburg had been burned, the farms in the vicinity destroyed, and that the English would supply no food to the residents. Hon. Winston Churchill, present Premier, fresh from South African adventures, put forward the quaint plea that the Germans had done worse in 1870. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman spoke against "methods of barbarism". Sir William Harcourt inveighed against "the gold gamblers of the Rand". Raymond's Life of Lloyd George, p. 79. 35


FIRST WORLD WAR—JEWS AND ANGLOPHILES "I could a tale unfold whose lightest word Would harrow up thy soul; freeze thy young blood; Make thy two eyes, like stars, start from thy sockets; . . ." Hamlet. Breathes there the man with soul so dead Who never to himself hath said, This is my own, my native land! Whose heart hath ne'er within him burned, As home his footsteps he hath turned From wandering on a foreign strand! If such there breathe, go, mark him well; For him no minstrel raptures swell; High though his titles, proud his name. Boundless his wealth as wish can claim, Despite these titles, power, and pelf, The wretch, concentred all in self. Living, shall forfeit fair renown, And, doubly dying, shall go down To the vile dust from whence he sprung. Unwept, unhonored, and unsung. Lay of the Last Minstrel—Scott. PLOTS Only in recent years has the vast amount of evidence been disclosed showing that the United States was drawn into the World War by a plot—or rather, a series of plots. The merits of the opposing sides in the War had little or nothing to do with our participation in it. " Y o u fool me once shame on you; you fool me twice shame on me." Watch each and every sleight of hand as hereafter disclosed. See how the same old shell-game, that bled us in 1917 and in 1918, is being worked again in 1940 to trick you into giving your sons' blood, your savings, your freedom, in another war for so-called democracy. A motley crew long served the plotters: 1. The habitual Tories who have always sided with England, even against their own country ever since Revolutionary days. 2. The political Anglophiles, of whom Robert Lansing. 36

Walter Hines Page, C o l . Edward Mandel House, Theodore Roosevelt, Elihu Root, etc. were the greatest offenders. 3. The munitions manufacturers and the international banking houses, hot for blood-money. 4. The international and metropolitan press, because of the nature of their ownership, the influence of advertisers and their increased circulation from shrieking headlines and atrocity stories. 5. Some rich and fashionable Christian pulpits, especially those subject to the all powerful New York influence, with their deceptive sermons about humanity and defense of Christian civilization. 6. War-mongering Presidents and Professors of opulent Tory colleges, who rushed to give England and France the lives of the student lads entrusted to them for education and guidance. 7. Ultimately and successfully —at last in the latter part of 1916 tipping the scales for America's entrance into Europe's war—the Zionist Jews of England and America, in cahoots with German Jews, who switched to England the allegiance of World Jewry. "It is quite often said that Americans entered the war with the greatest enthusiasm, but this is not true. The Eastern newspaper people, ministers, professors, and the upper classes throughout the country were, of course, strongly in favor of the move. But they had been partisan from the outset. On the other hand, among the common people who would have to fight the war, there was no rejoicing * * (It is the same to-day). Propaganda for War, by H. C. Peterson, P. 322. "Another * * factor to be considered was that American newspapers are primarily commercial undertakings. They exist largely for profits * *. Consequently, newspapers do not express the opinions or ideas of their editors or reporters, but the opinions of those who control the purse strings." (It is the same today). Ibid. Ps. 7-8. "The problem of gaining the sympathy and support of the American public turned upon the attitude of American newspapers." Ibid. P. 6. "* * the British did all in their power to enlist Americans as propagandists to overcome the resistance of Americans." (It is the same to-day). Ibid. P. 25. "The immediate task of British propagandists was to make an ordinary political power struggle appear to be a fight between the forces of good and evil." (It is the same to-day). Ibid. P. 33. 37

"The immediate problem for the British propagandists * * was to obtain the support of the leaders of American life. In this regard they were very fortunate. The American aristocracy was distinctly Anglophile. To assume a proBritish attitude was the 'thing to do' * *. Nearly all foreign banking was handled through the English capital. One of the Morgan partners stated: 'Like most of our contemporaries and friends and neighbors, we wanted the Allies to win * *. We were pro-Ally by inheritance, by instinct, by opinion.' " (It is the same today.) Ibid. ps. 8-9. "College professors, ministers, and above all, public school teachers, saw in England all that they thought was missing from America. * * (It is the same today.) "The problem of winning the support of the political leaders of the United States appeared * * even less difficult than * * gaining the adherence of the social, economic and intellectual leaders. Primarily politicians are reflectors of opinion, and the opinions they reflect are usually those given in the press." (It is the same today.) Ibid. p. 9. " A n outstanding result of the practice of capitalizing on friendships was the development, by Americans, of organizations for defense or other purposes, but which actually became centers of pro-Ally propaganda. One of the most important * * was the violently pro-Ally Navy League. The roll call of this League demonstrates the effectiveness of Britain's friends in securing the leaders of American economic life to back moves beneficial to the Allies. Among others it included: J. Pierpont Morgan; Thomas W. Lamont (Morgan); Elbert H. Gary ( U . S. Steel); Harry P. Whitney (Guaranty Trust Co. — agent of Atlas Powder and Hercules Powder C o . ) : S. H. P. Pell (International Nickel); Cornelius Vanderbilt (Lackawanna Steel); Ogden L. Mills (Lackawanna Steel); Frederick R. Coudert (National Surety C o . ) : Francis L. Hine (Bankers Trust C o . ) : Daniel G. Read (Guaranty Trust C o . — H . P. Whitney); Frank A. Vanderlip (President National City Bank—Standard Oil) * * and Percy Rockefeller." (The names are slightly different—the "interests" are the same. Their successors' hands w i l l soon be drenched with blood-money). Ibid. p. 31. "In the last analysis, opinion in America was divided not upon geographic lines, but upon lines of wealth and education: it was the country club versus the country * * Starting as early as August 1914, prominent men of America hastened to join a cause which was intellectually fashionable. Industrialists and financiers one by one took up the cudgels for the belligerents with whom they were doing so much profitable business * *. College professors and school 38

teachers repeated * * the arguments which had originated in Wellington House (London) or in la maison de la presse. Close behind the educators came the ministers, and before long the American clergy was preaching a holy war, enlisting God and the Bible in the cause which newspapers told them was righteous. Just as strange as the enlistment of the clergy was the enlistment of the liberals. * *" (It is the same to-day.) Ibid. p. 175-176. * * Robert N. Page, * * issued an open letter stating, 'Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. The loan of $500,000,000 to England by American capitalists, to say nothing of the profits of munitions manufacturers, has destroyed the semblance even of neutrality in the United States and will probably lead us into war.' A few days later the New York Times ran a cartoon in which Page appeared as a 'shade of Benedict Arnold.' The logic is not clear, but at least it explains the position of the Times." Ibid. p. 221. Robert N. Page was a Democratic Congressman from North Carolina, who came from a long line of American patriots. Charles A Lindbergh is the Robert N. Page of 1940, and the Jew New York Times, as usual, is defaming true Americans. "The total amount of American exports during these neutral years to the four great Allies * * were seven billions of dollars * *. For instance. Worth Brothers earned $4,013,184 on a capitalization of $250,000, a return of 1605 per cent. The Bethlehem Steel Company * * earned $24,821,408 in 1915. At the end of 1916 the astonishing figure was $61,717,309. In the first quarter of 1916 United States Steel earned over $81,000,000, and for the entire year, $348,000,000. The rough total of all of J. P. Morgan & Co.'s business * * was three billion dollars." ("There are hopes for them). Ibid. p. 256-257. "LaFollette wrote in 1916: 'Never in the history of this nation has there been a year like the past year for "surplus millions." "melons." "extra dividends." for the rich and powerful few.' Charles Lindbergh. Sr., shouted: amid all this confusion the lords of "special privilege" stand serene in their selfish glee, coining billions of profit from the rage of war." Ibid. p. 258. "One very interesting aspect of this period was the fact that although the Easterners had been shouting for war. when it came time to enlist, their enthusiasm was not so apparent. For two and one-half years the editors, teachers, preachers, bankers, lawyers and American society leaders had scolded the West for its lack of patriotism. When the test actually 39

came, however, enlistments in the West surpassed those in the East." (It will be the same after this election.) Ibid. p. 324. During those days we also heard a great deal of the chatter about the German "invasion" of this country exactly as it was heard during the Napoleonic Wars and as it is heard today. "The attempt to identify the interests and ideals of the United States with those of England dominated all British propaganda. Every possible effort was made to make Americans feel the war was 'our fight' ". Propaganda for War, H. C. Peterson. P. 35. " A t one time it was cheerfully reported that the proAlly newspapers 'believe that Great Britain is fighting America's battle, that the future of democracy is at stake, and that the United States will have to fight for it. if not now, then hereafter * *." Ibid. P. 35. "During the years of neutrality, New York newspapers seldom expressed views which would have been acceptable west of the Alleghanies." Ibid. P. 161. "The passionate belligerency of prominent Americans was not shared by the common people." Ibid. P. 176. The methods used to put over this cruel fraud which cost nearly 50,000 young American lives, the wounding of 300,000 and a foreign war-debt too great ever to be paid, were deceptive, fraudulent and dishonest, not to say treasonable. A l l of this we propose to prove. The plotting by Jews for both sides became important almost from the beginning of the war, in August, 1914. During the first two years of the War the German Jews in England and the United States were for Germany, viz., violently opposed to Russia. One, Sir William Speyer, was so loyal to Germany that he was deprived of his British citizenship and title and became an American citizen. Three German-American Jews — the brothers Paul and Felix Warburg and Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., were prominent — throughout this period — in backing the German cause. Long before he became an American citizen, Paul Warburg was a power in our Government. He had a hand in setting up the Federal Reserve System and became a member of the Federal Reserve Board. Speaking of him in a letter written on November 3, 1914, the British Ambassador to the United States, Sir Cecil SpringRice, said: 40

"Warburg, nearly related to Kuhn, Loeb and Schiff, and a brother of the well-known Warburg of Hamburg, is a member of the Federal Reserve Board or rather the member. He practically controls the financial policy of the Administration * * " American Goes to War, Tansill, P. 106. On August 3, 1914 — before the War actually started — the Rothschilds approached J. P. Morgan with a proposal to raise $100,000,000 in this country for the French. Morgan replied that "* * it might be very possible and excellent thing to do and shall hope to take up the question with you as soon as possible." In his War Memoirs Robert Lansing states, on P. 18: "I believed that it was unwise (in 1915) to attempt to obtain from Congress a declaration of war until American public opinion was practically unanimous in demanding such action. While it was hard to await the slow process of complete conversion to the cause of the Allies and to a right appreciation of the menace to human liberty in the possibility of a triumphant Germany, which then seemed more remote than in the autumn of 1914, there was no other course for the Administration to take, even though it aroused bitter criticism in many quarters." He mentioned for the first time in 1935 a memorandum, dated July 11, 1915, in which he advocated among other things, on P. 20: "The actual participation of this country in the war in case it becomes evident that Germany will be the victor. During the winter of 1915-16, Lansing and House were busily intriguing to force Wilson to declare war. Lansing urged war in August, 1915. In October, 1915 Colonel House was expressing unhappiness over the fact that "* * * we had lost our opportunity to break with Germany," and that "we should do something decisive now—something that would bring us in with the Allies." Intimate Papers of Col. House V. 2, P. 85. House, in his Intimate Papers, attests to the nature of the intrigue and does not hesitate to admit that he worked hand in glove with Jew Reading, Grey, Balfour and other British statesmen to force Wilson's hand. When we protested against the illegal seizure of American cargoes by Britain — as we also protested against German interference with our trade,—House counseled the British on the text of the replies they should make, and over the head of the State Department, dictated the dispatches of the American Government. With Grey, 41

he formulated a code to keep their communications secret from the British Ambassador and our State Department. Ambassador Page wrote in February, 1916, that House was back in London, "full of the idea of American intervention." "First his plan was that he and I and a group of the British cabinet should at once work out a minimum program of peace, the least the Allies would accept, which he assumed would be unacceptable to the Germans, and the President would present this program to both. The side that declined would be responsible for continuing the war. Then, to end the war, the President would help the other side — that is, the Allies. Of course the fatal moral weakness of the foregoing scheme is that we should plunge into the war not on the merits of the cause but by a carefully sprung trick." Even the Anglophile Page gagged at this trick, but House was not discouraged. He wrote the President, "If the Allies will agree to the conference and if Germany does not, I have promised for you that we will throw in all our weight in order to bring her to terms * *" This is only another way of saying that House promised American money, blood — on his own responsibility — long before either the American Congress or the American people were even consulted as to their wishes in the matter. In response to a question by members of the British Cabinet as to what the United States wanted Britain to do, House replied: "The United States would like Great Britain to do those things which would enable the United States to help Great Britain to win the war." As a matter of fact, the Anglophiles were already — exactly as they are today — preaching neutrality but helping the Allies in every possible way. House for Wilson in February, 1916, treasonably promised "all our weight" to England. Jewish Bullitt, for Roosevelt, on January 15, 1939, pledged to Count Potocki, Polish Ambassador to the United States, all our resources and our active participation, viz., blood and money, to England and France. Walter Hines Page appointed from New York (American A m bassador to London) "was an able teacher. He helped to teach Grey how to handle Wilson and Lansing (of New Y o r k ) , how to contrive blockades and persuade us to accept them. * * * He encouraged Wilson and House and Lansing in the conviction that Britain must not be stopped until victory was won. He could scarcely conceal his satisfaction in the sinking of American boats, for he saw that such acts would bring America into the war. He hoped for 'another 42

Lusitania.' He played upon the fear of a panic in the United States should loans be stopped." And So To War, p. 68. Edward Mandell House, then of New York, "persuaded Wilson that war was inevitable and necessary. * * * He concluded the secret House-Grey Agreement of February 22, 1916, which pledged the United States to go to Britain's aid if Germany refused peace terms consonant with Allied demands, * * * Ray Stannard Baker's description is justified, House was 'used by the Allies as a pawn.' " Ibid., p. 69. "* * * Said Spring-Rice (British Ambassador) to his chief, 'all the State Department are on our side except Bryan who is incapable of forming a settled judgment on anything outside party politics.' " Ibid. p. 70. SEQUENCE OF PLOT. House — Grey — Reading — Wilson London, February 10, 1916 — Jew Lord Chief Justice Reading (Sir Rufus Isaacs) called on Edward Mandel House (Wilson's roving agent) in London immediately after breakfast, and made arrangements for a dinner at Reading's home for House to confer with the great men of the British Government. London, February 10, 1916 — House writes from London to President Wilson "The Allies will agree to the conference, and, if Germany does not, I have promised for you (Wilson and America) that we will throw in all our weight in order to bring her to terms;" that he is to lunch with the British statesmen on the following day to get their approval, and w i l l dine with them (at Reading's house) three days later to consummate the understanding. London, February 11, 1916 — House had dinner with L l o y d George and Reading. "Both groups were cautious." "Also, in view of the anxiety which Wilson had displayed to avoid war with Germany and the American A m bassador's conviction of his unalterable pacifism, it is possible that they distrusted the President's willingness to bring the United States into the war if Germany refused terms." Intimate Papers of Colonel House, ps. 173-174. London, February 11, 1916 — House writes to Wilson telling him of what happened at the lunch and dinner, and informing him: " 'The next point that came up was how the British Government could let us know they considered the time propitious for us to intervene, without first submitting the ques43

tion to the Allies, and, if they did not submit it to the Allies, how to avoid the charge of double-dealing. " 'The solution I suggested for this was that at regular intervals I would cable Sir Edward Grey, in our private code, offering intervention. He could ignore the messages until the time was propitious, and then he could bring it to the attention of the Allies as coming from us and not as coming from Great Britain.' " Ibid. p. 176 " 'It was agreed that we should leave Grey's house separately.' " Ibid. p. 175. London, February 14, 1916, (St. Valentine's Day) — Edward Mandel House dines at the home of the Lord Chief Justice Reading, (Rufus Isaacs) at which Prime Minister Asquith sat on Reading's right and America's roving Ambassador on his left. They set forth their arrangements for the division of Europe and Asia. 'We all cheerfully divided up Turkey, both in Asia and in Europe." Ibid. ps. 179-182. (Palestine was then a part of Turkey). London, February 15, 1916 — House sees Sir Edward Grey and receives from him congratulations upon House's having committed Lloyd George so thoroughly to intervention by the President of the United States. Ibid. p. 182. London, February 16, 1916 — House drove to the House of Commons with X in order that he might have a few minutes' private conversation. Ibid. p. 183. London, February 17, 1916 — Lord Chief Justice Reading called on House to congratulate him on the result of the conference at the dinner at Reading's house. Ibid. p. 184. London, February 21, 1916 — Sir Edward Grey tells House he has shown to the French Ambassador and three of the British Cabinet the memorandum which Grey and House agreed upon last week. Grey states to House: "He has seen the French Ambassador, who asked Grey how serious he thought my proposal was; whether the President and I were in earnest, or whether we had in mind merely the influencing of the British and French favorably to the President, in order that it might have a bearing upon the presidential campaign." Ibid. p. 195. London, February 22, 1916 — Lord Chief Justice Reading called on House to inform him of a private talk he had had with the Prime Minister, concerning the conference at the Reading dinner. Ibid. p. 184. 44

London, February 23, 1916 — Sir Edward Grey gives House the agreement marked confidential to get the United States into the war, O.K.'d by Grey on Washington's birthday. House asks Grey to send Lord Reading to the United States in the event House cabled for him. House explains: " 'I am considering this as a precautionary measure and for my own protection. The President might agree (to war), and I would cable as much to Grey; then something might arise to cause the President to change his mind and I would be censured here (London) in unmeasured terms. Meanwhile the Allied Governments might have gone ahead with this understanding in mind, and followed a course which they would not have done had they not had the agreement with us." Ibid. p. 196. London, February 25, 1916 — House sailed from Britain to America. Washington, March 6, 1916 — " * * the walls in Washington, if walls had ears, would have a very exceptional privilege." House reports a long talk alone with President Wilson and lunches and spends most of the day with him, being only interrupted for an hour's interview with Lansing. That night House showed to the President the agreement which Sir Edward Grey and he had arrived at, which was the substance of House's understanding with France and Great Britain, whereby America would become a belligerent. Ibid ps. 199-200. The President accepted the proposition, only suggesting that the word "probably" be inserted. This treasonable agreement, in violation of the Constitution of the United States, to intervene in Europe's war, in which thousands of American boys were to suffer and die and billions of American money to be spent and lent, committed the United States to propose peace terms to the Allies and Germany on terms favorable to the Allies, "and, if it failed to secure peace, the United States would (probably) leave the Conference as a belligerent on the side of the Allies, if Germany was unreasonable." Ibid. p. 201. Washington, March 8, 1916 — House cabled to Sir Edward Grey, in the private code, the President's acceptance of the agreement on behalf of America. House also wrote to Grey on March 10, 1916: Dear Sir Edward: "After explaining to the President all that occurred at our conference, he wrote the cable I sent you on March 8th. I added nothing, for it was a complete approval of what had 45

been done. If the situation continues as now, and if Congress does not restrict him, everything will go through as planned. * * * It is now squarely up to you. * * * Be assured, my dear friend, that I am thinking of you always." Ibid. p. 220. This treasonable agreement to put America into Europe's war lay secret and silent, in the private archives of the President, while he ran again for President of the United States on the slogan "He Kept Us Out of War." (Remember Roosevelt's agent, Jew Bullitt's similar promise to Count Potocki on January 15, 1939.) The Allies did not move fast enough to suit the redoubtable Colonel. He wrote, "It is stupid to refuse our proferred intervention on the terms I proposed in Paris and London. If Germany refused to acquiesce in such settlements, I promised we would take the part of the Allies and try to force it." "Colonel House was naturally and bitterly disappointed," writes Professor Seymour, now President of Yale and sympathetic editor of House's Intimate Papers, and ardent war mongerer. "He had conceived a plan of boldness and one involving a revolution in American foreign relations * * *." Ibid. p. 283. ZIONIST JEWS D E S E R T G E R M A N Y FOR E N G L A N D A N D E N T R A P AMERICA INTO W A R The impression that Russia would soon collapse — something in which, as we will see, the Jews played a major part, began slowly to woo the German Jews from their alliance with Germany. Lord Reading had come to America, first as head of a British financial mission to obtain a large loan and then as Ambassador. Sir Cecil Spring-Rice was anxious to do everything possible for England but he did not like the idea that Lord Reading was to be the spearhead of the British campaign. In conversation with Colonel House, as reported by Prof. Tansill on page 109 of America Goes to War, "He distinctly mistrusted Jews" and thought "it would be necessary to save England in spite of herself." Jacob Schiff was one of the last to give in. Harold Nicholson, the English biographer of Dwight Morrow, a Morgan partner, relates the interesting incident. The determining factor, which finally seduced Wilson to abandon his fight for peace, was the concentrated drive of the Zionists — those Jews who had organized to get Palestine as their homeland. 46

JEWS B O A S T O F H O W T H E Y G O T A M E R I C A I N T O W A R This sinister plot is disclosed in the now-famous Landman Letter, published in the Jewish Chronicle of London on February 7, 1936. Landman was Honorary Secretary of the Second Joint Zionist Council of the United Kingdom, Joint Editor of The Zionist, Secretary and Solicitor of the Zionist Organization. He is now legal advisor to the New Zionist Organization. Under the title of "Great Britain, the Jews and Palestine", Landman writes in part: "During the critical days of the War, in 1916, when the defection of Russia was imminent and Jewish opinion generally was anti-Russian and had hopes that Germany if victorious would in certain circumstances give them Palestine, several attempts were made by the Allies to bring America into the War on their side. These attempts were unsuccessful. M r . Malcolm, who, at that time, was in close touch with the late Sir Mark Sykes (of the War Cabinet Secretariat) and M. Georges Picot (of the French Embassy in London) and M. Gout of the Quai d'Orsay (Eastern Section), took the initiative in convincing these representatives of the British and French Governments that the best and perhaps the only way to induce the American President to come into the War was to secure the co-operation of Zionist Jewry by promising them Palestine. By so doing the Allies would enlist and mobilize the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful force of Zionist Jewry in America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo basis. At that time, President Wilson attached the greatest possible importance to the advice of Mr. Justice Brandeis. . . . Sir Mark Sykes obtained permission from the War Cabinet to authorize M r . Malcolm to approach the Zionists on that basis. Neither Sir Mark Sykes nor M r . M a l colm knew who were the Zionist leaders and it was M r . L. J. Greenberg to whom M r . Malcolm applied for information to whom he should address himself. . . . The Zionists carried out their part and helped to bring America in, and the Balfour Declaration of November 2nd, 1917, was but the public confirmation of the verbal agreement of 1916. This verbal agreement was made with the previous knowledge, acquiescence and approval not only of the British, American, French and other allied Governments, but also of the Arab leaders. * * * "As already explained elsewhere by me in detail. Dr. Weizmann and M r . Sokolow knew that M r . James Malcolm came to them as the emissary of the British War Cabinet, which authorized him to say in their name that England would 'give Palestine to the Jews' in return for Zionist assist47

ance, through Justice Brandeis, in inducing the United States to come to the help of the Allies." * * * "Both Sir Mark Sykes and M r . Malcolm informed the Arab representatives in London and Paris that without the assistance of the United States the prospects of any Arab State arising after the War were most problematical, and they must therefore agree that Palestine should go to the Jews, as the reward for their assistance in bringing in the United States." The fact that it was Jewish help that brought the United States into the War on the side of the Allies has rankled ever since in German — especially Nazi — minds and has contributed in no small measure to the prominence which anti-Semitism occupies in the Nazi programme. This reminds us again of Belloc's reference to the Jewish willingness to serve any cause that serves the Jews. The Landman Letter is a perfect example of Jewish policy in action. Since the Germans were unwilling — or unable — to deliver to the Jews what they wanted —Palestine — in return for their support, the international Jews withdrew their support from Germany and pledged the blood and money of the United States on condition — a quid pro quo contract —that England would pay the price. The elements in this plot are most interesting. Up until late 1916 German and Zionist Jews in England and America were co-operating secretly and actively with England's enemy Germany —while other Jews (American, German, and others) were sabotaging Russia, England's A l l y . The Zionists had hoped — as Landman says — to get Palestine through German support. Then — when it became obvious that Russia's vitality was sapped, and that England would treat as a scrap of paper her promise to the Arabs and sell Palestine to the Jews — the American Zionist Jews began to add their pressure upon Wilson to abandon our isolation and pull their chestnuts from the fire. The background of the Zionists as well as a history of Lord Reading's amazing career and of how they engineered America into the war with the aid of Brandeis, Frankfurter, Jacob Schiff, Louis Marshall and other American Zionist Jews, is completely told for the first time in "The Eighth Crusade", a book published in London in 1937 by a retired British intelligence officer. On P. 9-10 we read: "The Inner Actions Committee of the Zionist Congress which met regularly in Berlin and transacted all international business between Congresses, was composed of members dis48

persed in various countries throughout the world. During the War, the services rendered to Zionism by Dr. Schmaryar Levin in the United States were invaluable, as were those of members such as Max Warburg and Hantke. * * * Max Warburg, brother of Paul and Felix, associated with his brothers and Jacob Schiff in Kuhn-Loeb, and the Chief of the banking firm of Max Warburg & Company, of Hamburg, was one of the 'German' plenipotentiaries at the Peace Conference in Paris. "The Zionist Inner Actions Committee operated from Constantinople through their agent Jacobson, who sheltered under the wing of his fellow tribesman, the United States Ambassador at the Sublime Porte, His Excellency 'Sir' Henry Morgenthau". * * * (Father of our Henry). The Eighth Crusade, Pp. 9-10. The writer continues: "But the negotiations which culminated in Woodrow Wilson's grandiloquent declaration of war had been long, arduous and intricate. That they resulted in Britain's favour was due in no small measure to the finesse and prestige of her plenipotentiary in the United States, Lord Reading, whose rise to power had been astounding even for a Jew. "His father, Joseph Isaacs, fruit and ship broker, had three sons, Harry, Godfrey and Rufus Daniel, all of whom have figured prominently in the law courts. When, in 1910, Godfrey became managing director of Marconi's Wireless Telegraph Co. Ltd., he was already a director of Marconi International Marine Communications Co. Ltd., and of the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Companies of America and Canada. Harry had been equally successful * * * (Here the writer discusses Harry Isaac's speculation in British Cellulose which was a major scandal of the day). "But amazing though they were, the achievements of Godfrey and Harry were eclipsed entirely by the more than spectacular exploits of their brother Rufus. After miraculously escaping criminal proceedings following his youthful activities as a stockbroker, Rufus Daniel Isaacs became a lawyer and entered Parliament, thereafter his politico-legalbusiness career was meteoric." Ibid. Pp. 28-29. Here the writer discusses Rufus Daniel Isaacs' (afterward Lord Reading); Herbert Lewis Samuel's (now Viscount Samuel), and Godfrey Isaacs' (Dan's brother, Managing Director of the Marconi Company) notorious gamble in the Marconi shares. " O n October 11, Parliament reassembled and a fierce debate on the Samuel-Isaacs Wireless contract took place. Both Rufus Isaacs and Herbert Samuel strongly denied that they 49

or any of their colleagues ever held a share in 'this company' whilst L l o y d George talked vaguely of 'slander' and 'foul lips'. When eventually a committee was appointed to investigate the scandal, Rufus Isaacs himself approached two of its members and privately informed them of his dealings in the Marconis and those of the other Ministers. * * * the Government instructed the committee to drop the matter and whitewash the culprits. Asquith appointed Rufus Isaacs Lord Chief Justice and two months later, Baron Reading of Erleigh. In June, 1915, he became a Knight of the Grand Cross of the Bath, and a year later a Viscount. "His greatest triumph came early in 1917 when the Entente financial crisis was nearing its climax, and Rufus Daniel Isaacs was selected * * * to represent the world's greatest Empire * * * in America, where he prevailed upon Zion to bring down the United States on the British side of the fence. In the same year, Isaacs was elevated to the Earldom and two months later was appointed Great Britain's Ambassador to the United States. Subsequently he was created Marquess of Reading and received the Grand Crosses of the Star of India, the Indian Empire and the Royal Victorian Order." The Eighth Crusade, Pp. 30, 31, 32. "So great was the influence exerted by Jews holding high office in the Wilson Government, both on the chief executive and on members of Congress, that the national policy of the United States was virtually controlled by Jews, amongst the most powerful of whom was the Zionist Louis D. Brandeis. * * * He was closely associated with President Wilson, by whom he was invariably consulted on all matters relating to War Finance and was on intimate terms with the British Financial Commission to the United States headed by Rufus Daniel Isaacs * * *. Ibid. Pp. 32-33. "The Warburgs were related to and associated with Jacob Schiff in Kuhn-Loeb & Co. Paul had a controlling influence in the Executive Council of the U. S. Federal Reserve Banks. * * * * * * "As a result of intense propaganda, Zionism won over the masses and most of the leaders of American Jewry, including the notorious President of Kuhn, Loeb, Jacob Schiff, himself, who since 1905 had been an active financial supporter of the Russian revolution, the 'blessings' of which had convinced him of the efficacy of Zionism. "Schiff was the greatest financial supporter of the German Jews Mutual A i d Society and during the war before America intervened, he and his colleague Heubsch formed the American Neutral Conference Committee which aimed at coercing the belligerents to make peace on Jewish terms. It was this Committee that spread the idea of a League of Nations of which 50

the nominal centre was to be Geneva, but its real centre was, of course, already firmly established in the home of international finance, under whose regime of international control all the nations would be welded into one vast servile state." Ibid. Pp. 34-35. "In New York, on September 26, 1918, (the Jew) Louis Marshall wrote to the anti-Zionist Max Senior: ' M y reasons for supporting Zionism have been emphasized by the rapid march of events. The Allied armies have now swept the Turks and Germans out of Palestine. It is significant that Jewish units constitute a part of the victorious army. President Wilson has expressed his approval of the principles laid down in the Balfour Declaration, and the Allied Powers are unanimously in favor of it. The American Jewish Committee recognized the political importance of the Balfour Declaration as a factor in the efforts to defeat the Central Powers. Major Lionel de Rothschild states that the League for British Jews, of which he is president, is in agreement with the American Jewish Committee. "The Balfour Declaration with its acceptance by the Powers is an act of the highest diplomacy. It means both more and less than appears on the surface, for Zionism is but an incident of a far-reaching plan: it is merely a convenient peg on which to hang a powerful weapon." The Eighth Crusade, P. 42. "In 1916 (the date is significant), the Zionists secretly transferred their support from the Central Powers to the Allies and their headquarters from Berlin to London. From then on their influence was felt more and more in political and financial circles in Europe and America. * * * " B y its ruthless financial machinations the Transfer Department established a Zionist credit system throughout the world which was instrumental in compelling the Allied Governments to recognize the Zionist organization as the official representative of the Jewish people. In 1916, the chief task which engaged the Zionists was the revolution in Russia * *. "Before that time Zionism in England * * * boasted no other patrons of any importance until Chaim Weizmann approached L l o y d George who responded immediately and enthusiastically. "A memorandum was then presented to the Cabinet by the Home Secretary, M r . Herbert Samuel (now Lord Samuel), strongly advocating the annexation of Palestine by Great Britain with the object of settling between three and four million Jews there. But M r . Asquith was not favourably impressed with the idea, notwithstanding that among Britain's Cabinet Ministers were some of Jewry's principal 51

marionettes, including Edgar Speyer's fidus Achates, the Prime Minister Herbert Asquith (whose anti-Zionist pronouncements made him an ideal foil to the real motives of Zionism) and Lords Crewe and Curzon, of whom the former had married the grand-daughter of Meyer Rothschild, while the latter married the daughter of Levi Zeigler Leiter of Chicago * *." " O f the Jews and pro-Jews behind the Government the most powerful were the shadow Minister and de facto Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rufus Isaacs (Lord Reading) and the following Jewish Privy Councillors who for years had wielded supreme power in the nation's innermost council of State: Lord Rothschild; Sir William Goschen; Sir Alfred Mond (Lord Melchett); Sir Edgar Speyer, bosom friend of Asquith: Sir Ernest Cassell; Sir Edwin Samuel Montague: Herbert Lewis Samuel (Lord Samuel); Sir Harry Simon Samuel; Lord Swaythling (Lewis Samuel Montague), whose widow, Rachel, is vice-president of the English Speaking Union; Sir Stuart Samuel, who was Winston Churchill's principal assistant in leading the opposition to the Alien Immigration Measure and was associated with him in procuring abolition of naturalization fees; Sir Hamar Greenwood; Right Honorable Leopold Amery, M. P., Sir Philip Sassoon, onetime Secretary to Lloyd George and to Field Marshal Haig. Isaac Blumchen in his Le Droit de la Race Supérieure might have had the latter in mind when he wrote: 'We (the Jews) watch over the Gentiles through their Jewish secretaries.' " Ibid. Pp. 11 to 18. It was not contemplated, so sure was House of himself, that those who opposed our entrance into the war would get very far. When he saw that our war was imminent — the war for whose imminence he himself was partly responsible — he promptly got in touch with the New Secretary of War, Newton D. Baker, and advised him of the fact. He also (according to Prof. Tansill in America Goes to War, p. 496) told Baker to use a "firm hand" in suppressing disorders that might break out in large cities like New York and Chicago. 'It is a 'mistaken mercy' to temporize with troubles of 'this sort'', he said. Remember House held no official position until the war was over, and yet he thus ordered our Secretary of War to mercilessly slay Americans, who did not want to die for his dear England, before war was declared by our Congress. It was also along about this time that Page, now fully ablaze with the sacred fire, wrote (on Embassy stationery) referring sarcastically to Wilson's "bastard neutrality": "The thing, the only thing is — a perfect understanding between the English speaking people. That's necessary and that's all that's necessary. I frankly tell my friends here * * * that we Americans have got to hang our 52

Irish agitators and shoot our hyphenates and bring up our children with reverence for English history and in awe of English literature."— Life and Letters of Walter H. Page. V o l . 2, p. 144. Had the American people been sufficiently suspicious of Wilson's "other self", Colonel House, they might have read his novel Philip Dru in which he outlined the acts and policies of the Wilson Administration — this before he ever met Woodrow Wilson. "Philip Dru" has also been one of the Bible books of Roosevelt's New Deal. House had admitted himself to be a socialist of the Blanc school. Blanc's doctrines of State Socialism, incidentally, have flowered as National Socialism under Adolf Hitler. "It occurred to me," House wrote on May 9, 1916, "that May 27, when the League to Enforce Peace meets in Washington, would be the right time to make the proposal and I am so suggesting to the President." Intimate Papers of C o l . House 1915-1917, P. 294. Professor Seymour, now President of Yale, relates that Wilson realized the extent of House's revolution of foreign policy, because he points out that his address "threw completely to one side the doctrine of isolation." In the light of recent statements from the White House on the subject of America's duty toward the world are some striking phrases. This is Woodrow Wilson, not Franklin Roosevelt, speaking on May 24, 1916: "We are participants, whether we would or not, in the life of the world. The interests of all nations are our own also. We are partners with the rest. What affects mankind is inevitably our affair as well as the affair of the nations of Europe and of Asia." Intimate Papers of C o l . House 1915-1917. P. 295. On the historic day when Woodrow Wilson uttered these words, the lives of over 50,000 young, strong and hopeful men drew near an undeserved end. The parallel with the situation today is almost too painful to expose. Commenting on Wilson's speech, Professor Seymour says. "In great governmental crises of this sort, the public has no conception of what is happening behind the curtain." We cannot but conclude that what is "happening behind the curtain" today — as in 1916 — is secret from those most intimately concerned — those whose lives and money are at stake. In an incredible exhibition of deception to help the English by declaring armed English merchantmen not belligerent, Secretary of 53

State Lansing sent to the White House for transmission to Congress — when asked for an opinion regarding armed merchantmen — the historic decision of John Marshall in the Nereide case, on the subject; but Lansing's opinion left out three entire lines of the Marshall opinion, with the result that the "conclusion" was exactly the reverse of Marshall's. Speaking of this unbelievable act, of which Prof. Tansill says President Wilson was "probably aware" (America Goes to War, P. 481), John Bassett Moore, the eminent international jurist said, in part, (Ibid. P. 4 8 1 ) : " O f Marshall's opinion in this famous case (the Nereide) a garbled version was got out here, a version so false as to constitute practically a forgery; but it was widely disseminated, and was used in speeches even in Congress. I repeat that this version practically involved forgery, because it omitted from Marshall's opinion the passage in which it was declared that the ship, by reason of the fact that she was armed, was to be regarded as 'an open and declared belligerent, claiming all the rights, and subject to all the dangers of the belligerent character.' " Professor Peterson, an American Professor of History, states: "Eventually the idea became current that for an American to be pro-Ally was to be patriotic and for him to be proGerman was to be anti-American." Peterson: Propaganda for War. P. 35. The "atrocity stories" which encouraged us in our anger against Germany, such correspondents on the scene as Roger Lewis, Irvin S. Cobb, Harry Hansen, O'Donnell Bennett and John T. McCutcheon denounced as "groundless". "Many of the propaganda stories in the World War were not new merchandise but merely the stock-in trade garnered by former war propagandists." Ibid. P. 59. "In 1937 First Lord of the Admiralty, M r . Alfred Duff Cooper, stated: '* * we did everything in our power to starve the women and children in Germany!' " (Churchill was and is more brutally for starvation). Ibid. P. 83. "Walter Hines Page stormed: 'It would take several years to kill that vast horde of Germans, but it will not take so long to starve them out.' " Ibid. P. 83. "Great impetus was given to the preparedness movement by the appearance of a certain motion picture * * 'The Battle Cry of Peace'. Hundreds of thousands of Americans were to witness this gory piece of incomparable propaganda for 54

preparedness. They were to be thrilled and horrified by its portrayal of an unprepared America overrun by the brutal and licentious soldiery of a foreign power which, though unnamed, uniformed its troops in a strangely close imitation of the Germans." (Jew movies are again working this trick night and day.) Ibid. P. 202. "Numerous newsreels and feature length pictures were released in the United States and John Masefield reported that these cinemas had been effective." Ibid. P. 238. " A i r attacks upon defenseless cities continued to provide material for the pity propaganda. Sir Gilbert Parker noted that 'air raids upon London * * were supplying a most desirable tonic to American opinion.' In this particular propaganda, as in that connected with gas, there occurred a somewhat changed attitude in cases where the efficiency of the Allies was comparable with that of the Germans. On June 26, 1916, the Corpus Christi procession at Carlsruhe in Germany was bombed by planes belonging to the Allies. Five women and sixty-five children were killed. A little later Munich was attacked. * * * The New Y o r k Herald's headline stated: 'Munich Bombed by Daring French Flyer in Great Feat'. Here the atrocity, when done by a French aviator, became a commendable action." Ibid. P. 244. "In April, Bonar Law gave an interview, at the instigation of Parker, on the danger of a German invasion of the United States." Ibid. P. 245. "The resulting climate of opinion made it impossible for those Americans who desired to keep out of the war to express their views. Their warning cries were drowned out by the pro-Ally tub-thumping." Ibid. P. 247. "Wilson's extravagant partisanship was a product of the idealistic British propaganda which pictured the war as a holy war." Ibid. p. 208. The Rt. Hon. Winston Churchill, now Premier of His Imperial Majesty's Government, and then First Lord of the Admiralty, after the disastrous retreat of the British Army, in the latter part of August, 1914, sent an urgent letter to the Prime Minister, to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and to the Secretary of State for War, in which Churchill stated, he had heard of the willingness of about 60,000 Americans, including a number of Southerners, to fight for England, and that wealthy Americans were anxious to subscribe to 55

their equipment. Since Churchill was and is a friend of the big New York bankers who themselves only fight with money, it is probable that these were the wealthy Americans to whom he referred as anxious to put up money, so that the blood of American boys could be shed in the fields of Flanders, Churchill stated: "It ought to be possible to organize in Canada an American volunteer force amounting to at least a Division, which could go into action as such. Nothing will bring American sympathy along with us so much as American blood shed in the field." The World Crisis, by Churchill, p. 293. Admiral Chadwick rightly distrusted England. Writing to President Wilson on May 16, 1916, he said a word of warning: "* * * let us beware * * it is not for us. Never in our history was there greater need of caution; never was there greater need of all the serpent's wisdom. English diplomacy is a deep and subtile game of which our people * * are as ignorant as kittens. She needs to be warily dealt with * * The future of our country is in the balance in this war, and it is England which w i l l tip the scales against us if we are not cautious." The summary dismissal of Sir Cecil Spring-Rice as British Ambassador to make room for the Ambassador of Jewry, Lord Reading, was a shock to the former's friends and an even greater blow to Spring-Rice. He died soon after — of heartbreak, said his friends. It is probable that he suspected that England's campaign — which was synonymous with that of House and his mysterious backers — to bring us into the war was not entirely the result of military necessity. His letter to Balfour on January 4, 1915, hints that he suspected something: "Justice Brandeis," he says, "called on me yesterday. He is the accepted leader of the Zionists and was nominee of many prominent Jews for the Supreme Bench. "He is said to have much influence with the President." Letters of Spring-Rice, V o l . 2, P. 421. In her biography, My Memoir, the second Mrs. Wilson makes a single cryptic statement describing an event perhaps unimportant save as it reflects a condition—a state of affairs—which history only now is able to discuss. She says of the President: " . . . he went alone at night to consult Mr. Justice Brandeis and shortly thereafter, on December 26th, took over, in the name of the Government, the control of the railroads." Were we not already familiar with the habitual secrecy of the 56

Jews and of the vast and powerful nature of their influence this— even without its context—could be passed off as unimportant. It is, however, but one more record of the fabric of influence, of secret unremitting pressure. That a President should make an unconventional call alone on a Supreme Court Justice at midnight might have no significance ordinarily, but when it becomes one of an almost endless succession of links in a chain leading to an obvious end, it cannot be dismissed lightly, especially when it is recollected that Wilson had few male friends or confidants, and made few if any calls upon them night or day. In Boris Brasol's book, "The World at the Cross Roads," we read: "It is not a mere coincidence that at the notorious meeting held at Stockholm in 1916, between the former Russian Minister of the Interior, Protopopoff, and the German agents, the German Foreign Office was represented by M r . Warburg, whose two brothers were members of the international banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., of which the late M r . Jacob Schiff was a senior member * * *." W E A R E IN Our new Secretary of War, Newton D. Baker, former pacifist, married to a Jewess, was an able man. With George Creel, newspaperman and propagandist, who it is understood claims not to be a Jew, and the Jew Bernard Baruch, Wilson had a triumvirate which literally "ran" the United States. In Our Times, V o l . 2, p. 369, Mark Sullivan says of them: "Baker, Baruch and Creel were at once simpatico to W i l son and had charge of the three most important channels through which Wilson fought the war. Baker in charge of the Army, Baruch as head of industrial mobilization, and Creel in charge of the dissemination of ideas were the three tines of Wilson's trident." *






" B y the nature of this war, and especially in the way in which Wilson conceived it and directed it, the three principal agencies were Baker as Secretary of War, Baruch as Chairman of the War Industries Board, Creel as chairman of the ideadisseminating, emotion-arousing function that went with the Committee of Public Information." CONGRESS Delegated to Wilson the practically arbitrary powers he needed as President 57


Fought the War mainly through BAKER

Secretary of War


Chairman of War Industries


Chairman of the Committee on Public Information "Our Times", by Mark Sullivan, P. 369. Of Baruch, Mrs. Wilson writes in My Memoir, p. 150: "The industrial forces of the nation (were) regimented under the able direction of M r . Baruch."

Benedict Crowell, Assistant Secretary of War under Baker during the World War, said: "One thing should be said about Baruch to explain his peculiar position of influence in the War Department—he had the ear and confidence of the President, an advantage which few of the executive heads in Washington could claim." How America Went to War by Crowell & Wilson, V o l . 1. P. 31. "As to the control of American Business, it became absolute. There was no freedom of individual enterprise. The control was autocratic, as powerful as any which ever reigned in the Russia of the Romanoffs or in Prussia when her Junkers drank to Der Tag—one of these men" (Baruch, the Jew) "a civilian, guided the destinies of the War Industries Board." Ibid. P. 7. Balfour, as head of the British delegation to the United States, told us that the most the Allies would ask from us was money and ships. "Papa" Joffre said he did want a few soldiers with our flag to restore French morale. It was not long before the Jew Lord Reading proposed that untrained American troops should be put in the front lines of Allied armies to die under English and French Generals. This bloody proposal was stopped only because General Pershing fought it with all the courage and stubbornness which was his. T H E WORLD'S C O N F E R E N C E — T H E JEWISH LEAGUE OF NATIONS It takes the word of one of the world's most distinguished and reliable writers—Mr. H. Wickham Steed—in his Through Thirty Years, to bring this chapter in the story up to date. Steed says, in part:— " * * * a flutter was caused by the return from Moscow of 58

Messrs. William C. Bullitt and Lincoln Steffens who had been sent to Russia towards the middle of February by Colonel House and M r . Lansing, * * * Mr. Philip Kerr" (now Lord Lothian, British Ambassador to the U. S. and an earnest propagandist for American intervention in World War No. 2) "and, presumably, Mr. Lloyd George, knew and approved of this mission * * *. Potent international financial interests were at work in favour of the immediate recognition of the Bolshevists. Those influences had been largely responsible for the Anglo-American proposal in January to call Bolshevist representatives to Paris at the beginning of the Peace Conference. * * * The well-known American-Jewish banker, Mr. Jacob Schiff, was known to be anxious to secure recognition for the Bolshevists, among whom Jewish influence was predominant; and Tchitcherin, the Bolshevist Commissar for Foreign Affairs, had revealed the meaning of the January proposal by offering extensive commercial and economic concessions in return for recognition. At a moment when the Bolshevists were doing their utmost to spread revolution throughout Europe, and when the Allies were supposed to be making peace in the name of high moral principles, a policy of recognizing them, as the price of commercial concessions, would have sufficed to wreck the whole Peace Conference and Europe with it. At the end of March, Hungary was already Bolshevist; Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and even Germany were in danger, and European feeling against the bloodstained fanatics of Russia ran extremely high. Therefore, when it transpired that an American official, William C. Bullitt, connected with the Peace Conference, had returned, after a week's visit to Moscow, with an optimistic report upon the state of Russia and with an authorized Russian proposal for the virtual recognition of the Bolshevist regime by April 10th, dismay was felt everywhere except by those who had been privy to the sending of Mr. Bullitt." 301-302. Steed says (p. 3 0 3 ) : " * * * shortly after leaving Colonel House, information reached me that M r . L l o y d George and President Wilson would probably agree next morning to recognize the Bolshevists in accordance with Mr. Bullitt's suggestions." "I had hardly sent this article to the printers when an American friend, M r . Charles R. Crane, who had been dining with President Wilson, called to see me. He showed great alarm at the turn things were taking. 'Bullitt is back,' he said, 'and the President is already talking Bullitt's language. I fear he may ruin everything. Our people at home will certainly not stand for the recognition of the Bolshevists at the bidding of W a l l Street.' " * * * "Before I was up next day, Colonel House telephoned to say that he wished to see me urgently. Apparently, to use an 59

Americanism, my article 'had got under the President's hide.' When I reached the Crillon, House and Auchincloss looked grave. I told them that, had I waited to discuss policy with them before writing my article, the chances were that there would have been no policy to discuss because the President, and, possibly, Lloyd George would have committed themselves to recognition of the Bolshevists that very morning." Ibid. p. 304. After the publication of the aforementioned article in the London Daily Mail, Bullitt testified that the next morning he had breakfast with Lloyd George and Philip Kerr (now Lord Lothian, his Majesty's Ambassador, who is here now to get our sons and money. He is being begged by our English Speaking Unions and some of our Patriotic Societies, Colleges, and Chambers of Commerce to tell us how to speedily make the sacrifice). Bullitt further testified that he wrote to Wilson, but that the President did not reply since he (Wilson) would have been obliged to show that Lloyd George had made an untrue statement. Colonel House told Steed: "The President, he said, was being influenced more and more by Lloyd George who was showing the Manchester Guardian to him and persuading him that only by a pro-Bolshevist and semi-pro-German policy could a disaster be avoided in England." Ibid. p. 310 ( V o l . 2). This William C. Bullitt, the rich son of a Jewess of Philadelphia, husband of the widow of John Reed, Harvard's most distinguished Communist, who died in the Kremlin, was President Roosevelt's first Ambassador to Soviet Russia. He is now more happily situated as Ambassador to France. His disgust with Russia dates from Stalin's purge of the "old Bolshevists" — Jews almost without exception. Bullitt is an ardent interventionist to-day and in documents to be set forth in part later in this volume—pledged America's entrance in the second World War. This is the same Bullitt who the distinguished English journalist, Wickham Steed, caught plotting at the end of the first World War for his fellow Jews and Bolsheviks in Russia. After his report to the Peace Conference, in which he was joined by the late Lincoln Steffens, an avowed Communist, Bullitt quit the Peace delegation in a huff, and some aspects of his report were later denounced by the Congress as false and misleading. To continue with Steed's discussion: "That day Colonel House asked me to call upon him. I found him worried both by my criticism of any recognition of the Bolshevists and by the certainty, which he had not pre60

viously realized, that if the President were to recognize the Bolshevists in return for commercial concessions his whole 'idealism' would be hopelessly compromised as commercialism in disguise. * * * I insisted that, unknown to him, the prime movers were Jacob Schiff, Warburg, and other international financiers, who wished above all to bolster up the Jewish Bolshevists in order to secure a field for German and Jewish exploitation of Russia." p. 302. " * * * Yet Jewish influence was more persistent and more efficient. Had it been united, and could it have been coherently directed, it might well have prevailed; but, in point of fact, Jewish idealism served, in part, to counteract the work of Jewish finance and of Jewish cosmopolitan agencies. This Jewish idealism was of two kinds. Though, in one of its forms, it strengthened for a time the pro-German and panGerman tendencies of Jewish finance by bringing Jewish hatred of Imperial Russia into line with Jewish attachment to Germanism, its support of Germanism slackened when the Russian Empire fell. * * * The gulf that severed Western Europe from Russia during the latter half of the 19th Century was dug and kept open chiefly by Jewish resentment of Russian persecution of the Jews. Yet that resentment sprang also from Jewish detestation of the Russian Holy Synod and of the Russian Orthodox Church as survivals of mediaeval Christianity and as promoters of a crusade for the possession of 'Tsarigrad' (Constantinople) and of the Holy Places. Against Russian Christian fanaticism was ranged an intense Jewish fanaticism hardly to be paralleled save among the more militant sects of Islam. This Jewish fanaticism allied itself with the anti-Russian forces before and during the earlier years of the war. It abated only when the Russian Revolution of March 1917 and the subsequent advent of Bolshevism, largely Jewish in doctrine and in personnel, overthrew the Russian Empire and the Russian Orthodox Church. The joy of Jewry at these events was not merely the joy of triumph over an oppressor but was also gladness at the downfall of hostile religious and semi-religious institutions * * *." "When international Jewish sentiment had thus ceased to be actively pro-German, another form of Jewish idealism came more effectively into play. The Zionist, or Jewish National, movement which was started by the late Dr. Theodore Herzl in the last decade of the 19th Century, * * * Towards the end of 1916, mainly through the instrumentality of the late Sir Mark Sykes, then an Under-Secretary to the British War Cabinet, and of M r . James A. Malcolm, a prominent British Armenian, the Zionist organizations in Europe and the United States began to identify themselves with the Allied cause. M r . Malcolm rightly urged that the Jews were less pro-German than anti-Russian and that their national aspirations were not 61

inimical to the Allied cause. As a result of discussions with Zionist leaders in England, especially Dr. Weizmann, Mr. Sokolow, and Dr. Greenberg, communications were established with prominent American Zionists who used their influence in favour of American participation in the war. * * * Not only did this declaration (Balfour Declaration) increase the interest of American Jewry in the war, but it tended to neutralize the influence in Russia of the pro-German Jewish Socialists who were working with the Bolshevists. The efforts subsequently made to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine and the difficulties inherent both in the nature of things and in some aspects of the Jewish character, belong rather to the history of the Zionist movement than to the consideration of the broad factors that operated in favour of an Allied victory; but it is incontestable that Zionism played a part in the defeat of the pan-Germanism with which so many Jewish financiers and business interests had been identified." Ibid. ps. 390-391-392. Earlier in his book, Steed emphasizes the influence of his opposition to the recognition of Soviet Russia upon House and Wilson. It is worth noting that ever since the publication of Through Thirty Years there has been an unremitting effort on the part of certain forces to "play him down" and, also as in the case of Belloc, to decry his abilities and integrity. An attempt to buy the works of either of these two distinguished writers in this country will answer sceptics on this point. Summarized, all the evidence indicates that the Anglophiles, warmongers and international bankers almost succeeded, but that the Jews, English, American and German—working behind House, Page and Lansing as "fronts", finally were able to get us into the World War No. 1 in return for a national home in Palestine; that German and American Jews financed the Russian Revolution and pushed for recognition of the Bolshevists behind Bullitt, Lloyd George, and Lord Lothian as "fronts"; and finally, as we propose to show, that the whole force of Jewry attempted to push us into the League of Nations, a Jewish creation designed and set up to safeguard and consolidate Jewish international interests. There is also a mass of evidence at hand to prove that the alleged "peace" which followed the Armistice, with its arbitrary redistribution of territory according to the demands of the Jewish representatives at the Conference, was but another product of these secret influences. Russia and Palestine were only parts of the picture. W H O W A S HOUSE? Edward Mandell House in his furtive, slick way, was possibly 62

the most baneful influence ever powerful in American public affairs. According to the recent book, " M r . House of Texas," prepared and written with the consent and aid of House by Howden Smith, House's father emigrated from England to Texas before the Civil War and during that conflict accumulated a tremendous fortune running the blockade, shipping cotton, etc., to Europe, and "was one of the few Southerners who came through the war years without any appreciable diminution of wealth." (Page 9.) According to Howden Smith, there are malicious rumors that House was of Jewish extraction, but Smith says that this is not so and that he only named his son Edward Mandell after his intimate friend, a Jewish merchant. While the Southern people were undergoing the sufferings and terrors of reconstruction, the millionaire House, like Judah P. Benjamin, took his family, including Edward Mandell, back to the comforts and joys of old England and put the boys in a fashionable English school, where, according to Howden Smith, "here were planted (in Edward Mandell) the seeds of that partiality for Britain, his father's homeland, which undoubtedly exerted a profound influence upon his mental attitude in after years," (Page 12). After the people of the South regained their freedom from the carpet-baggers, opulent House and family returned to Texas and on his death must have left many millions, considering the number of children and the amount that each one received. Edward Mandell House moved to New York and, to the eternal sorrow of America, became Wilson's only confidante, adviser and roving Ambassador. One of his sisters married Dr. Sidney Mezes, who became President of the College of the City of New York, and he and the Jew, Walter Lippman, assisted House " i n an atmosphere of secrecy" to prepare for the European peace, and the proposed League of Nations (Page 257). House's infamous book "Philip D r u " , Primer for the socialistic Wilson and Roosevelt doctrines, among other communistic statements, declared that the Constitution of the United States was "not only outmoded, but grotesque." According to Howden Smith, House "was a fearless thinker, utterly untrammeled by accepted conventions. For example, he was under no illusions as to the basic character of the American Constitution and the system of government it created. He believed that the Constitution, product of eighteenth-century minds and the quasiclassical, medieval conception of republics, was thoroughly outdated: that the country would be better off if the Constitution could be scrapped and rewritten. But as a realist he knew that this was impossible in the existing state of political education." (Page 23). 63

At Versailles Wilson found House out and would have nothing more to do with him. "Pertinax", the well-known French foreign expert, writing in the Echo de Paris on April 28, 1920, following a discussion of the influence of the Warburgs and Jacob Schiff on both Washington and Berlin, says: "According to the same authority, Jacob Schiff * * * 'the great financial supporter of the Mutual A i d Society of German Jews' founded the American Neutral Conference Committee, which took upon itself the task of bringing about peace with a victorious Germany. Then appeared for the first time all the formulae of the League of Nations, the anathemas launched against the 'old diplomacy', which was said to be responsible for bringing about the war. On this point, consult the work How the Diplomatists Caused the War. written by M r . Heubsch, the colleague of M r . Schiff on the Neutral Conference Committee." M. Charles Maurras, brilliant French historian, in his Les Trois Aspects du President Wilson, says: "The decisive influence exercised on Mr. Wilson was by a very small company, financiers by profession, domiciled between Hamburg, Frankfort and New York. They were identified with the Association for the League of Free Nations, with its seat in America, and including, among other people, Mr. Felix Frankfurter, President of the War Labour Policies Board, a great banker, Jacob H. Schiff, the Cohens, the Blumenthals, the Chapiros, not to speak of the Mrs. Mary Simkovich." Dr. Dillon, in his story of the Peace Conference, says in part: " O f all the collectivists whose interests were furthered at the Conference, (Versailles), the Jews had perhaps the most resourceful and certainly the most influential exponents. There were Jews from Palestine, from Poland, Russia, the Ukraine, Roumania, Greece, Britain, Holland, and Belgium: but the largest and most brilliant contingent were sent by the United States." "* * * it is none the less a fact that a considerable number of Delegates believed that the real influences behind the Anglo-Saxon peoples were Semitic." "The formula into which this policy was thrown by the members of the Conference, whose countries it affected, and who regarded it as fatal to the peace of Eastern Europe, was this: 'Henceforth the world will be governed by the AngloSaxon Peoples, who in turn are swayed by their Jewish elements.' "It should be remembered that the original claims of the Jews went much further than those which were eventually 64

sanctioned by the Conference. 'The hero of the Minority Treaties,' to quote a phrase of the Jewish Guardian, the able and moderate organ of Anglo-Jewry, was M r . Lucien W o l f —the same gentleman who has recently been attacking the Protocols." It was Israel Zangwill, author of The Melting Pot, who said: "The Minority Treaties were the touchstone of the League of Nations, that essentially Jewish aspiration * * * ." The concept of the World State is essentially Jewish and the Jews have made little attempt to conceal it. This is natural enough since, as Belloc indicates, the Jew inevitably becomes unwelcome in the land where he is tolerated for any length of time. A boundaryless world is, to the Jew, an ideal world. Jessie Sampter—Lady Queensborough, in her Occult Theocracy, p. 639, says: "The League of Nations is an old Jewish ideal." She states that at the Congress of Grand Orient of Central Europe, held in Paris in June, 1917, the Congress announced that it was adopting the scheme for the League in thirteen articles which were sent to the Allies and neutrals. In Geneva vs. Peace, p. 73, the Compte de Saint-Aulaire reports that London "bankers" were the first and most liberal subscribers for League propaganda and that, "After the Peace Conference was in session, telegraphed instructions were sent Woodrow Wilson on May 28, 1919, by Jacob Schiff, representing the Association of Free Nations." 'The League of Nations is a Jewish idea. We created it after a fight of twenty-five years." Nahum Sokolow, August 27, 1922, at the Carlsbad Congress. In 1938 Hubert Herring, a distinguished educator and author, published through the Yale University Press a book that every student of government and lover of his country should read. It is entitled "And So To War." He shows how our unneutral acts led us into the last World's War, and says: "We paid for the war. We paid with the lives of the 126,000 dead, of the 234,300 mutilated and wounded. We paid with the dislocated lives of hundreds of thousands whom the war wrenched from their accustomed places in a peaceful world. We paid in the imponderable damage to our national morale through the lashing of war hysteria. We paid with a period of economic confusion from which we have not yet escaped. The direct bill for the war has reached 65

the figure of fifty-five billions of dollars. The indirect bill can never be reckoned." " A n d So T o War", p. 20. According to the New York City papers, Secretary of State Bryan was guilty of "Unspeakable treachery not only to the President but to the nation." "Bryan's 'treachery' was neutrality." The elder Senator LaFollette, in speaking against our declaration of war, said: "There is always lodged, and always w i l l be, thank the God above us, power in the people supreme. Sometimes it sleeps, sometimes it seems the sleep of death: but. sir, the sovereign power of the people never dies. . . . The poor, sir, who are the ones called upon to rot in the trenches, have no organized power, have no press to voice their will on this question of peace or war; but, oh, M r . President, at some time they will be heard . . . there will come an awakening; they w i l l have their day and they will be heard. It will be as certain and as inevitable as the return of the tides, and as resistless, too." Congressman Lindbergh, father of Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh, said: "Speculation and loans in foreign fields, especially with nations at war, are likely to bring us into war. They form a powerful incentive on the part of speculators to get us into the war but even if it results that way, they will never be stated as the cause. Y o u can depend upon it that the trustsupported press will be used to trump up some other thing as the pretended cause, or things w i l l be staged to force some country to commit acts of war on us." (When Congressman Lindbergh tried to publish a book enlarging upon these remarks, Government agents confiscated the book and destroyed the plates.) Senator George W. Norris then said: "I know that this war madness has taken possession of the financial and political powers of our country . . . we are committing a sin against humanity and against our countrymen."



JEWISH POWER IN THE WORLD TODAY "We have found the beast and pared its nails and now take it in our arms, fondle it, write plays to flatter it: it is visited by princes, affects a taste, patronizes the Arts and is the only liberal and gentleman-like thing in Christendom." Marlowe's Rich Jew of Malta. Douglas Reed, a British officer, twice wounded in the World War, afterwards a distinguished author and long time continental correspondent of the London Times, has always been most hostile TO Hitler. His Insanity Fair was highly praised by John Gunther, Edwin Mowrer, Walter Duranty, and H. L. Knickerbocker. Of the results, Reed later wrote: "After I wrote Insanity Fair I was swamped by offers from American publishers for my next book. I signed a contract with one firm. When I began Disgrace Abounding I did not know that it would be an anti-Semitic book. The antiSemitic part is the result of my observation of the Jews in the last year and of my conviction that the mass influx of Jews to England is a political mistake and a national misfortune. "The American publisher, after reading Disgrace Abounding, declined to publish on the ground that the Semitic part was 'slanderous and libellous'. Read the Jewish part for yourself and see if this is true. I, for my part, declined to have the book published anywhere without the Jewish chapters. The real meaning of that decision is that, in America, you may 'slander and libel' Germany as much as you like, and be paid for it, but you must not discuss the Jewish problem, you must not assert that there is a Jewish problem. Other American publishers declined the book on the grounds that they could not publish the Jewish chapters. One of them, not a Jew, said that an American publisher would court misfortune by publishing it, because 90 per cent of the American newspapers are Jewish, and the Jewish influence extends in similar proportion throughout the whole ring of trades connected with publishing. "I see very little difference between the Jewish and the Hitlerist method, in this matter of free speech and free discussion. The Jews are for free attacks on Germany, nothing else. The same thing happened in some of the Scandinavian countries, where Insanity Fair had great success and where 67

publishers were clamouring for the next book — until they saw the Jewish chapters. They asked to be allowed to publish the book without them. I refused. The same thing happened in France even with Insanity Fair, where a publisher contracted for the book who apparently could not read English and only realized when he saw the French translation that there were a few passages in it which he did not consider sufficiently favourable to the Jews. He demanded their excision, I refused, and he sold the contract to another firm. "So only in England, as yet, and possibly in France— although I do not yet know whether this book will appear in France — may a non-Jew openly discuss the for and against of the Jewish question. "The importance of this, for you, is that you should realize that what is presented to you as 'American approval' or 'American disapproval' of this or that action of British policy is not American bat Jewish opinion, and that this puts quite another face on the matter. If you are to fight Germany again, you must do it for England's sake." Disgrace Abounding, ps. 478, 479. Most of Reed's references to the Jew in this Insanity Fair book were not critical. He made, however, one highly significant statement about the Jewish race in that book. Referring to the change in Europe in the last few years, he said: (p. 159): "The new prosperity was born in rearmament, and that was begun in the name of anti-Communism and anti-Semitism. Abyssinia, Spain and China have already shown that the new armament race spells death, not for Jews, but for indiscriminate millions of helpless Gentiles, Africans, Chinese and what not. The profits from the armaments race w i l l go largely into the pockets of the Jews, because of their preponderant share in retail trade, which in the last resort catches the pounds and pennies paid out by the manufacturers to their workers." Reed's Insanity Fair preceded his Disgrace Abounding, the latter of which, because certain chapters dealt with the Jewish problem in Europe, was refused publication in America. Copies, however, can be obtained in London. In this later book Reed describes the reactions to certain references to the Jew in his previous book, Insanity Fair, and charges that the British and the world in general are easily aroused by stories of Jewish 'persecution' while not caring a whit about the persecution of other peoples. He also refers to the difficulties that have been placed in the way of the publication of his subsequent books. 68

"I wrote various incidental passages about Jews in Insanity Fair * * * One British newspaper and two American spoke reproachfully of my anti-Semitism. If you discuss the question at all the welkin immediately rings with the yelping of 'Anti-Semite,' * * * Disgrace Abounding, Ps. 230-231. "I distrust the fiction that these Jews are Germans or Frenchmen or Englishmen, when I know that they are in all countries closely welded communities working, first and foremost, for the Jewish cause. * * * Race-antagonism began, not with the Gentiles, but with the Jews. Their religion is based on it. This racial lunacy which you detest in the Germans has possessed the Jews for thousands of years. When they become powerful, they practice it; as they consolidate their position in one trade after another, in one profession or another, the squeeze-out of Gentiles begins. That was why you found, in Berlin and Vienna and Budapest and Prague and Bucharest, newspapers with hardly a Gentile on the editorial staff, theatres owned and managed by Jews presenting Jewish actors and actresses in Jewish plays praised by the Jewish critics of Jewish newspapers, whole streets with hardly a non-Jewish shop in them, whole branches of retail trade monopolized by Jews." Ibid., 232, 233, 234. "Walk any Saturday evening along Oxford Street or Regent Street, contemplate those thousands of hatless young men, of carefully dressed and arm-linked young women coming up from the east to go to the great film theatres * * * Do you believe these are English people? Do they? " W i l l they help us to re-make England into a sturdy and well-found land of craftsmen and farmers and sailors? Do they not rather stand for the cheap and tawdry frocks * * sweated labour * * for gaudy Babylonian film temples, for your blasted Glamour Girls, for trashy imitation jewelry, for spurious marble halls * *?" "What have you in your heart for the Jews? Is it pity? "The answer is: 'What have you in your hearts for Gentiles?" "That brings you at a stroke to the root of the matter. Not anti-Semitism was first, but anti-Gentilism. Y o u have heard * * about Hitler's Nuremberg anti-Jewish laws, with their ban on intermarriage, which the Germans call racedefilement. "A most intelligent and cultured and open-minded Jew * * said to me, 'After all, the Nuremberg laws are only the translation into German of our own Mosaic laws, with their ban on intermarriage with Gentiles.' " Ibid. Ps. 232-233. "In the defeated countries the Jews did not use the great 69

power they achieved to promote and accelerate assimilation. They used it to increase the power and wealth of the Jews, and their intensive mutual collaboration, in that era, to oust non-Jews from professions, trades and callings, was the outward and visible sign that anti-Gentilism remained within them. The race barriers that had existed against the Jews were broken down, every path was open; but the race-barrier within themselves still existed, and thus you had the misuse of this freedom and those grave signs of its abuse, the exploitation of cheap labor and of young non-Jewish womanhood, which were so repugnant a feature of life in Berlin and Vienna, and still are seen to-day, as I write, in Budapest and Prague." Ibid. p. 234. He goes on to say that he knows many Jews who have fought for the side they wished to win. He adds, "But I also know that they had less to fear if their side lost, that they prosper in defeat and chaos. I saw this in Germany (after 1918, of course), and Austria and Hungary * * * I distrust the fiction that these Jews are Germans or Frenchmen or Englishmen, when I know that they are in all countries closely welded communities working, first and foremost, for the Jewish cause." "I stood, in the heat of that September crisis (1938) * * and talked with a young Jewish journalist. 'I am for war,' he said loudly, 'this is the moment to stop Germany.' * * 'What would you do in this war?' (I asked). 'Oh!' he said, airily, 'I intend to survive it.' 'Then why call for war, if you are not going to fight?' I asked. 'What can I do?' he said, 'I am a Hungarian subject, that would mean fighting for Germany.' 'Why not go to Republican Spain and fight there,' I answered, 'or to Czechoslovakia, and fight with the Czechs?' 'That would be difficult,' he said, fidgeting. He too was thinking of a war between Gentiles for the purpose of exterminating anti-Semitism." Ibid. P. 229. "There is a Jewish problem. Like the slum problem and the German problem you w i l l leave it until it devours you." Ibid. P. 230. "In three Central European capitals that I know the baptism of Jews, since the annexation of Austria, has become an industry. The step is taken in all cynicism, as a business proposition, a means of getting into countries which have banned the admission of Jews * * * The convert is usually reconverted to the Hebraic faith when the anti-Semitic period passes. These baptized Jews, who have no belief whatever in Christianity, join the community of 'non-Aryan Christians' for whom your church leaders constantly appeal." 70

" A n industry has also grown up around the very distress of the Jews, namely, the industry of marriages bought and sold. A l l English readers have seen reports of cases where foreign Jewesses have paid foreigners to marry them in order to acquire another nationality and be beyond the reach of immigration bans and business hindrances * * *. I was told by a Jew in Prague, ' A n y young Englishman could earn a million kronen by marrying a Jewess from here.' His neighbour commented, 'He wouldn't need to be young.' " Ibid. Ps. 234-235. "The feeling towards Gentiles that is given the Jew when he comes into the world and is fostered in him within his family circle, is that the Gentiles are people more stupid than the Jews, who can be used to bring profit and advantage to the Jews. It is a fundamentally hostile attitude, the strength of which is that the Gentiles, by and large, do not realize its existence." Ibid P. 236. "It would put an end to the Jew who constantly steps across the frontiers and repeatedly changes his language, his nationality, and his professed allegiance, who is a German to-day, an Austrian to-morrow, a Hungarian the day after, and next week an Englishman, who claims a privileged place in the world that is open to no other race or faith, who, in the name of love for that particular country in which he happens at the moment to be, works beelike for war against the anti-Semitic state that he has left. Here you have the ruling idea of the dummer Christ again, the stupid Gentile who can be egged on to fight the other Gentiles in order to exterminate anti-Semitism. Organized international Jewry ought, in the name of dignity alone, to put a stop to this." Ibid. P. 237. "Protest and fight against anti-Semitism as much as you like, but do not expect the nations to go to war about it." Ibid. P. 237 "It is not true that Jews are better journalists than Gentiles. They held all the posts on these Berlin newspapers because the proprietors and editors were Jewish. The opinions of these newspapers were quoted abroad as samples of German opinion. They represented the Jewish interest exclusively, in their attitude to both foreign and domestic affairs. If another country was friendly toward Jews, they were friendly toward that country; if it was anti-Jewish they attacked it." Ibid. P. 238. "I remember a case, when a Lord Mayor of Berlin was detected taking bribes from a Jewish contractor. * * * I remember how the Jewish newspapers tried to whitewash that 71

scandal, to divert attention from the fact that the firm of contractors was a Jewish one. I observed this same attitude, on the part of Jewish newspapers, towards an endless series of financial scandals and criminal trials in which Jews were concerned, in Berlin and in Vienna." Ibid. P. 238. "In Berlin, one day, there was a Jewish journalist, a member of the staff of one of those snappy, sensational, bedtime story sheets. Came Hitler, and he retired to Vienna, and joined a newspaper of the same sort there. Came Hitler, and he retired to Prague." * * * * "This man could by no stretch of imagination be called a German, an Austrian, or a Czech. He was a Jew, born in some place that once was Russia and now was Poland or Lithuania or Estonia or heaven knows what. He had supplied 'the German view' from Berlin, 'the Austrian view' from Vienna, 'The Czechoslovak view' from Prague. Now I saw him, day by day, in hotel lounges, deep in conference with well-meaning but ill-informed English people who had come to 'help the Czechs.' He poured a heart-rending tale into their ears, threatened to commit suicide. This was no destitute fugitive, but a slick fellow who was always well-fed and well-dressed and stepped smoothly across the frontier into another land every time anything happened to make him move on." Ibid. P. 240. "If you have eyes to see, take a look at this London of yours, the greatest city of the world, in 1939. Go with open eyes, from Marble Arch to Hyde Park Corner, along Piccadilly to Leicester Square, down the strand to Fleet Street. * * * It is as if a drag-net had been cast over Berlin and Vienna and Budapest and Prague and Naples and Paris and Warsaw and Cracow, and the catch dumped down here in this paradise of gilt, chromium, plush and neon-lighting, where Shakespeare once mustered his players, where Milton and Chaucer walked, whence Drake and Raleigh sailed in search of new worlds, where English craftsmen once, long ago, made gates of good wrought iron and chests of good oak. * * * where Englishmen now sit in imitation marble halls * * * "Put your heads through the doors of the restaurants, (In London) Petit Paris, Klein Berlin, Manana's, Hoggensteins's, Posenovitch's, Umpsky's, and all the others, and see who is eating, who is serving, there. Stroll through the lounges * * * of the cheap but splendiferous hotels around Piccadilly, the Strand and Marble Arch, and see what manner of people are reclining In those cushioned depths. "Take up your newspaper and read the small advertisements: * * * "I, Aloysius Ibrahim Espagnolovitch hereby give 72

notice that I have changed my name to Arthur Etonharrow * * *". Ibid. Ps. 242, 243. Reed describes the immoral and debased journalism of the Jewish newspapers in Berlin, Vienna, Budapest and Prague, where most of the dailies carried brothel advertisements of the most blatant sort. He describes a condition in the entertainment world almost identical with that in this country, in which nearly all the theatres, movies, producing companies and dramatists were Jewish as were most of the performers. "In 1919 a Red Republic was proclaimed in the land of the Magyars. Of the Government, of the twenty-six People's Commissars, eighteen were Jews! * * * They had a straw man * * as President * * * but he had nothing to say. Theirs was the Hungarian Kingdom, the power and the glory. Aaron Cohen (Bela K u n ) , Josef Pogany (John Pepper in America), Tibor Szamuelly (Samuels) and the others reigned unchallenged, and did some very unpleasant things. Their fingers were no whit less quick on the trigger than those of Ad Hitler or Al Capone. Many people are puzzled by the leading part that the Jews play in Communism. How can the Jews, who love money, be for a doctrine which denies the right of private property, the right to amass wealth, they ask their little selves. The answer is that there is always money at the top, and at the top is a thing that attracts Jews more than money—power." Disgrace Abounding, Ibid. P. 253. "The machine of Jewish wits is set to work to foster the sympathy, to enlist the help, of the Christians." Ibid. P. 248. "Seventeen years later, in 1938, the Jews in Hungary were richer and more powerfully established than ever before. The memory of the Bela Kun regime seemed completely to have faded * * * On paper, as always, the proportion of Jews to the population was very small — about * * * 6.5 per cent of the total * * *. "In this matter of the Jews, figures are great prevaricators * * They owned 46% of all industrial undertakings. They manned 70% of the boards of all companies representing big business. On the boards of the leading banking houses their share was between 75% and 80%: 67.2% of private brokers and 36% of banking clerks were Jews. They had even gained possession of 11.7% of all land in Hungary —against the urgent warning of a Zionist leader, who * * had told them: ' Y o u are making a fatal mistake in acquiring landed 73

property. Y o u already own more than half of the immovable property in this land. The people cannot in the long run tolerate such a conquest. Only by force of arms can a minority, which is alien to the people, and is not historically renowned like the old aristocracy, maintain its hold on such possessions.' " O f the bigger estates, 17.6% were in Jewish hands; 34.4% of all doctors were Jews, 49.2% of all lawyers, 31.6% of all journalists. In Budapest, * * * the proportion was much higher. The publishing and printing trades were almost exclusively Jewish, all privately-owned theatres were Jewish, and 40.5% of film theatres. To get a clearer picture of this almost monopolistic control take the boards of the twenty leading industrial undertakings in Hungary in 193435. Of 336 names 235 were Jewish; 290 of the biggest industrial concerns in Hungary were under the control of the ten biggest banks. Of 319 names on the boards 223 were Jewish. In 1936, 19 newspapers in Budapest employed 418 editors, journalists and contributors; 306 were Jewish. " N o w leave the figures and look at Budapest, at the retail trade, the mightiest of all the Jewish strongholds * *. In Budapest there are miles of streets where you may search vainly for a non-Jewish shop * * *. "The contrast between this strongly entrenched Jewish community, all its units earning a good living, and the poverty of the workers in outer Budapest, of the peasants in many parts of the country, is striking and depressing. Most of the workers work for Jews and, when they get their meagre pay envelope, hand it to their wives, who trot along to the Jewish shopkeeper and give it back * * * Nowhere where the worker or the peasant can get at it. Ibid. Ps. 254, 255, 256. " * * * I believe that if you cannot have your Jewish state, then you must resolutely close your frontiers to any more Jews and apply yourself diligently to assimilating those that you have, but in this case you must safeguard yourself against their rise to disproportionate power and affluence through methods which, in our code, amount to unfair competition." Ibid. P. 261. "Everything I have seen has confirmed the opinions I had formed during eleven years of wandering about the Continent, and I have had these opinions confirmed to me by Jews themselves. Now all these Jews are making plans to go to England, to the British Dominions, to America. It is not a solution; this new emigration will bring with it the same deterioration of standards in those countries, the same disproportionate and unjustifiable rise in the level of prosperity in the Jews above that of the native population, the same 74

conditions that have played their large part in bringing about the present outburst of anti-Semitism * * *" Ibid. Ps. 263-264. "The other Jewish school of thought is for boldly accepting the truth, that Jews are Jews and unassimilable, for setting up a National Jewish state somewhere of which all Jews should be subjects. It is* * * the solution and ought at all costs to be done. Then the native citizen of other countries would know with whom he had to deal and what motives he might expect in that citizen of a foreign state. It would put an end to the Jew who constantly steps across the frontiers and repeatedly changes his language, his nationality, and his professed allegiance, who is a German today, an Austrian tomorrow, a Hungarian the day after, and next week an Englishman, who claims a privileged place in the world that is open to no other race or faith, who, in the name of and love for that particular country in which he happens at the moment to be, works bee-like for war against the anti-Semitic state that he has left. "Here you have the ruling idea of the dummer Christ again, the stupid Gentile who can be egged on to fight the other Gentiles in order to exterminate anti-Semitism." "I spent many years in Germany, both before and after Hitler * * and there had the opportunity to study the Jews in the heydey of their power. They were still almost debarred from the army, but apart from that might attain to any post in Germany. The period of opening freedom and opportunity which begins in the eighteen hundreds had reached its golden climax. Every door was open. How did they use this freedom? To work for Germany? * * No man's hand was against them, but they used it to increase and fortify Jewish power and wealth to the detriment of the non-Jewish community." Ibid. P. 237. "If we are, one day, to fight Germany again, it must not be to put the Jews back on their cushioned pasha's thrones there." Ibid. P. 265. "We were in the most expensive dance-bar in Prague. * * * Nine out of ten of the males present were young, expensively dressed Jews. * * * An hour from Prague lay the new German frontier. * * * Jews were being driven across the frontier. The outer world was receiving every day a witherswringing tale of Jewish misery. * * * In the weeks that followed, my English newspapers, every day, were filled with outraged cries about the maltreatment of the Jews, with appeals to help them. Y o u would have thought, to read these papers, that Jews everywhere were on the run, being beaten up, 75

robbed, murdered. Here in Prague, an hour from Hitler, I saw them every day and every night, dancing in the more expensive bars, lolling in the arm-chairs of the more expensive hotels, thronging the cafes, enjoying life, no whit less aggressive, monopolistic, loudly self-important than they had ever been before." Ibid. Ps. 267, 268. "Just as the Jews tend to monopolize the callings and professions into which they penetrate, when there is no antiSemitism, so did I find them monopolizing compassion and succour when there was anti-Semitism, and as their numbers are small compared with the great mass of non-Jews who are suffering from brutality and persecution in our times, I thought this to be the old evil, the squeeze-out of the nonJews, breaking out in a new place." Ibid. P. 269. " D o you think superior talent enables a Jewish actor or actress smoothly to step from leading parts in Berlin to leading parts in Vienna, when Hitler appears, and again from leading parts in Vienna, when Hitler appears there, to leading parts in London? Do you think non-Jewish talent would find the same open-armed reception from film and theatrical and operatic producers in London, in Paris, and New York? Do you think it is a whim of nature that Jews from Poland, Russia, Galicia or Central Europe are needed to put English history on the screen, to portray famous figures of English history, a British officer, a Tudor prince? Do you imagine no Englishmen are available?" Ibid. P. 240. "The Jewish question, misunderstood as it is in England, clouds what would otherwise be a fairly clear issue for English people. The great influence that organized Jewish communities in England, France and America have on the Press in those countries helps further to cloud it. You must not forget that when you read in your newspapers outbursts of indignation about the treatment of the Jews, you are sometimes, and not infrequently, reading material inspired by Jews, whose innermost thought is that you should fight Germany, not for your own sake, but to exterminate anti-Semitism * * * Ibid. P. 279. "It makes me read with the greatest skepticism all comment on the international dogfight which I know or suspect to come from Jewish sources." Ibid. P. 279. "* * * Jewish children would be admitted to England in any number, without any limit whatever, 'if they were sponsored by responsible bodies and individuals.' 'Without 76

any limit.' Ten thousand, twenty thousand, fifty thousand Jewish children. Not a word about the non-Jewish children, so much more numerous. * * * This foreign-compassionemigration and foreign succor business is being worked by the Jews in exactly the same spirit as, in the times of their power and prosperity, they use their position in business and the professions — to squeeze out the non-Jews. Even in adversity the spirit of racial antagonism drives them. They cannot help it, it is in them, they work like bees to get the best for their own people. If the non-Jews allow it, they are to blame. But it is monstrously unjust to the non-Jews who are in want and distress. * * * In Prague a young non-Jewish refugee, who saw no hope of ever getting away, said bitterly to me: 'If I were a Jew I should have been out of this long ago.' I could not challenge him. I knew this to be true in very many cases. I had seen far larger numbers of non-Jewish than of Jewish children, in a worse plight, uncared-for, with no organized community of sympathizers in the nearest town, with no one to enlist foreign sympathy on their behalf, coughing, breaking out in scrofulous sores, developing tuberculosis. * * * I knew English people who carried the banner of humanity about with them but seemed unmoved by the lot of these non-Jewish children, who were so much more numerous and no less deserving than the Jewish ones. Their active compassion seemed only capable of being awakened for Jews." Ibid., Ps. 302, 303, 304. IN RUSSIA Jewish groups ardently deny — now that it is popular to do so — that they played a dominant role in the Russian Revolution and in setting up the Communist movement, although in 1919 and 1920 they boasted about the Jewish leadership in bolshevism. The Jewish Chronicle (London) of April 4, 1919 carried an article stating — "There is much in the fact of bolshevism itself, in the fact that so many Jews are bolsheviks, in the fact that the ideals of bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism." The American Hebrew (New York) of Sept. 10, 1920 carried the further statement: "What Jewish idealism and Jewish discontent have so powerfully contributed to accomplish in Russia, the same historic qualities of the Jewish mind and heart are tending to promote in other countries." Major Yeats-Brown, born of a fine old English family, a graduate of Harrow and of Sandhurst, a gallant officer in the English Army in 77

the World War, a distinguished author, editor and foreign correspondent, familiar to Americans through his "Lives of a Bengal Lancer" discusses in his latest book, "European Jungle" the situation in the various European countries. We quote him briefly: "In 1917, Lenin was smuggled into the country (Russia) with four Jews, Leiba Bronstein (alias Leon Trotzky), Apfelbaum (alias Zinoviev), Rosenfeld (alias Kamanev), and Sobelsohn (alias Radek), with the help of the Germans and a Jewish banking house in New York, and through the agency of Israel Lazarevitch Helphand, alias Parvus, a Russian Jew who made his fortune in Denmark out of German coal. " K a r l Marx, the father of Bolshevism, whose real name was Mordecai, was the son of a rabbi in Treves. He hated the Jews, it is true, but then he held most of the human race in scorn, except the Proletariat, with whom he rarely came in contact. * * * * "According to the Reverend George A. Simons, of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Petrograd, in December, 1918, no less than 265 were Jews from the Lower East Side of New York City. There were 106 European Jews, one North American Negro, and only 16 genuine Russians. Sixteen Russians, a negro, and 371 Jews! The president of this collection of aliens was the Jew Zinoviev. " M . Oudendyke, the Dutch Minister in Petrograd, sent a report to the British Government * * stating that 'unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately it is bound to spread all over Europe, in one form or another, as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose object it is to destroy the existing order." This report was published as a White Paper by the British Government, but disappeared almost immediately from circulation. When reprinted, the above passage was deleted. "The population of Russia was then (1918) 158,400,000, of whom 7,800,000 were Jews. The present population is about 170,000,000, and probably the same proportion — say 5% — are Jews. Yet in 1935, in the Central Committee of the Communist Party, consisting of 59 members, 95% were Jews * * while the other three members were married to Jewesses — Stalin, Lobov, and Ossinsky." European Jungle, Ps. 179, 180, 181. Major Yeats-Brown goes on to show that the Red Ambassadors to Berlin, Paris, Rome, Tokyo, Ankara, Brussels, Oslo, Stockholm, Bucharest, Riga, Tallin and Helsingfors were Jews (1935) as were seven of the eight delegates to the League of Nations. He continues: 78

"During his travels along the border districts of the U.S.S.R., M. Jean Fontenoy found that 90% of the directors and secretaries of the collective farms he visited were Jews * * * The words Communist and Jew were synonymous with the peasants: they thought that the Jews were the rulers of the land. "In Kremlin circles the two brothers-in-law of Stalin, Lazarus and Moses Kaganovitch, are Ministers of Transport and Heavy Industry, respectively; the guard of the Kremlin is confided to the Jewish Colonel Jacob Rappaport; while the concentration camps, with their population of 7,000,000 Russians, are in charge of a Jew, Mendel Kermann, aided by Lazarus Kaman and Semen-Firkin, both Jews. * * * Foreign policy is almost wholly in Jewish hands, beginning with that man of many aliases, M. Meyer Moses Polyanski, alias Enock Finklestein, alias Gustav Graf, alias Buchmann, Harrison, Maximovitch, Wallach, Berr, and Litvinof, the Foreign Minister of the U.S.S.R. at whose breakfast table M r . Eden found pats of butter stamped with the slogan, 'Peace is indivisible.' " European Jungle, Ibid. Ps. 181-182. Major Yeats-Brown describes the murder of the Czar's family: "The Bolsheviks could find no Russians to murder him (the Czar), so the guard was replaced by one composed of foreigners. The commander, Jurovski, was a watchmaker in Tomsk, who had renounced the Jewish religion to become a Lutheran. " A t mid-night on July 16th-17th, Jurovski went to the rooms in which the prisoners slept, and woke them, telling them that they were to be moved elsewhere. The Czar carried the Czarevitch downstairs in his arms. He was followed by the Czarina, the four Grand Duchesses, the Court physician, three servants and Anastasia's pet dog, Jimmy. * * * "Suddenly Jurovski arrived, followed by nine men with revolvers. * * * The Czar did not understand. He had only time to say 'What?' before Jurovski shot him. At the same moment the nine other men opened fire on the Empress and the other members of the household. The Czarevitch fell on his face, groaning. Anastasia shrieked; they finished her off with bayonets, and the dog." Ibid. ps. 36. Major Yeats-Brown, whose credibility is attested by Winston Churchill in "Step by Step", page 96, further describes Communist intrigue and outrages: "One thousand six hundred churches in Moscow have been closed by the Communists. Last Easter an Archbishop, a Bishop, and twenty-five clergy were arrested. * * * 79

"During the first six months of 1938 more than 600 churches were closed in Russia. Persecution is not confined to the Orthodox Church. In prewar Russia there were 410 Roman Catholic churches, with 8 Bishops and 810 priests: now there are 11 churches with 10 priests." Ibid. ps. 38-39. "Communist intrigue throughout the world is a matter of history. Here only the main facts are set down, in an effort to represent their results in terms of human life. If the list is wearisome to the eye and mind, the reader should reflect how much more tedious these incidents were for the individuals and nations concerned: "In 1918 some 6,000 persons were murdered in Finland, or fell in the struggle against Communism. In Esthonia, Communists shot 3,000 small shop-keepers and traders because they were 'capitalists.' In Germany and Austria there were several risings inspired by Communists." Ibid. p. 48. IN H U N G A R Y "In Hungary no one living during the Communist terror of 1918 forgets that nine-tenths of the Soviet Government was Jewish. The two most bloodthirsty savages were the President, Aaron Cohen, alias Bela Kun, and Tibor Szamuelly, his chief executioner. Both were Jews. * * * "The revolting cruelties of Kun, Szamuelly, Otto Korvin Klein, Eugene Hamburger, Bela Szanto (Schreiber), Bela Vago (Weiss), and subordinates such as Ascherowitz, Itzkowitz, Kereks, Goldberger, Löbl, Janosik, Dinnyes, Meszared, Imre Dogei, Alex Pap, Joseph Gasper, Dezso Reiheimer, Arpad Cohen (who confessed to eighteen murders and three robberies), and Isidor Bergfeld (who confessed to 155 murders). A l l these men were Jews." European Jungle, Ps. 190, 191. " * * the people of Hungary have not forgotten that a young Jew, Leo Reiss, spat on the Host when it was being carried through the streets of Old Buda on the day of Corpus Christi, 1918." Ibid., p. 192. "Soon a levy of hostages began, among whom were six former ministers, several Bishops, and many leading business men. 'There is nothing to be obtained without blood,' said Bela Vago, one of the chiefs of the Revolutionary Tribunal. 'Without blood there is no terror, and without terror there is no Dictatorship.' Bela Kun was of the same mind: 'We must drown the counter-revolution in blood,' he cried. 80

"In May, 1919, the Army was 'democratized' (i.e., the officers were cashiered or shot, and agents of Moscow put in their place), while the teaching of patriotism was abolished from the schools. Religion was derided. The Press was not only free, but filthy: the following being one of the milder specimens of punctuation-less 'proletarian poetry': "Europe fat slimy Whore with whisky eyes The sweat of perfume factories Christ pants between your breasts Sailors stroke your belly Freedom Equality Motherhood A host of priests spring from your thighs A n d crosses blossom in the shade of cows." Ibid. p. 224. "Joseph Pogany, (John Pepper in America) some-time Commissar of Education, was a mountebank of notorious incapacity and profligate life, who imagined himself to be the Napoleon of the movement, and was generally surrounded by prostitutes. He was despised even by his own associates; indeed, nobody took him seriously, except the victims of his robberies and murders." Ibid. p. 225. "In Szolnok, Szamuelly hung twenty-four people (including Paul Suranyi, the President of the Court of Chancery) without even the semblance of a trial * * * "Soon it became clear that a crash was coming." (Aaron Cohen, alias) "Bela Kun transferred L50,000 to Basle. Throughout July a special train stood ready to take him and his friends to the safety of bourgeois (although bolshevizing) Austria." Ibid. ps. 226-227. "Count Tisza was shot on October 31st, 1918, by soldiers said to belong to the Social Democratic Party of Hungary, under the direction of a young Jew, Joseph Pogany, who afterwards became a Minister under the Communist regime of Bela Kun. So the revolution in Budapest began: its tide reached Vienna, Munich, Berlin, and Rome before receding; and advanced again, in 1934; to Geneva, Paris, Madrid, and Prague. F u l l tide of Comintern activity was in July, 1938, at Prague, when 'the nations in their harness' seemed to be gathering for a world war; it turned again at Munich, and was at its low after the fall of Barcelona. But the friends of Moscow have by no means lost hope; there are still infinite possibilities of trouble in Central Europe." European Jungle, P. 220. 81

IN GERMANY In Munich a Soviet was established, whose members murdered the hostages they had captured, robbing them and mutilating their bodies. In Berlin, Dr. Oscar Cohen admitted that he had received 4,000,000 roubles ( £ 8 0 0 , 0 0 0 ) from the Soviet Ambassador, the late M. Joffe, for the purpose of fostering world revolution. "In 1923 there were Communist risings in Germany and Bulgaria. Bela Kun, who had escaped from Budapest after his four months' rule in 1919, was sent by his Moscow masters to the Crimea, where he liquidated 70,000 people with machine-guns." European Jungle, Ibid. p. 48. "In 1929 fierce street fighting occurred in various parts of Germany, where Communism grew apace, with even worse results than in Italy. Berlin was a sink of iniquity: German Communist writings of the time prove that the disintegration of youth was one of the means by which it was hoped to produce a revolutionary situation." Ibid. ps. 49-50. "The facts are that Communism began to advocate revolution in Germany on August 4th, 1914, when the Spartakus League was formed by Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht, and Klara Zetkin. * * * "* * * Strikes 'to weaken the home front' were fomented by them in the Ruhr in January and February, 1917; in Hamburg and Bremen in March; in Kiel, Braunschweig, Berlin, Leipzig, Hanover, and Dresden in A p r i l (1917). * * * "Immediately after the armistice in 1918 the first Communist rising in Germany began in earnest. Workers' and Soldiers' Councils were formed in twenty-four cities. Throughout December there was street fighting in Berlin (Organized by Radek-Sobelsohn) * * * "In A p r i l , 1919, a Communist Government came into power in Munich, under the leadership of three Russian Jews, Levine-Nissen, Levien, and Axelrod. This 'Soviet Republic' lasted less than a month, but cost the citizens of the Bavarian capital 927 dead and several thousands wounded. A particularly brutal murder of hostages (nine men and a woman) is noteworthy because of similar atrocities, inspired by similar ruffians from Moscow, which have lately occurred in Spain." Ibid. ps. 140-141. "Pornographic literature was displayed in the leading bookshops of the principal cities of Germany, and eagerly 82

bought by boys and girls who thought themselves emancipated from the cramping complexes of their elders. Ibid. p. 142. "In Berlin in 1931, out of 29 theatrical producers, 23 were Jews. Half the films made were made by Jews, who owned 19 out of 20 production firms. Out of 3,450 lawyers, 1,925 were Jews. Half the doctors were Jews. In Breslau, out of 285 lawyers, 192 were Jews. In Frankfurt, out of 659 lawyers, 432 were Jews. Fifteen Jewish bankers in Germany had 718 directorships. The German Communist presses were controlled by Herren Thalheimer, Meyer, Scholem, Friedlander, all Jews. "In Vienna, where the Jewish problem was even more acute than in other German cities, 85 per cent of the lawyers were Jewish, 70 per cent of the dentists, and over 50 per cent of the physicians and surgeons. The boot and shoe industry was 80 per cent under Jewish control, newspapers 80 per cent, banks 75 per cent, the wine trade 73 per cent, the cinema 70 per cent, lumber and paper trade 70 per cent, fur and furriers 87 per cent, bakeries 60 per cent, and laundries 60 per cent under Jewish control. "It is incontestable that the Jews in pre-Hitler Germany occupied too many key positions, and used their power to further policies alien to the wishes of the majority of the German people. During the inflation of 1923, some Jews with financial connections abroad profiteered in a shameless fashion and acquired land and property which the German people now consider to have been stolen from them. In Berlin, until recently, 33 per cent of the real estate in the capital was in Jewish hands. The Jews who profiteered were generally not the long-settled residents, but strangers from the ghettos of Poland and Transylvania. But how were the Germans to discriminate?" Ibid. ps. 188-189. Writing in 1933, Dr. Manfred Reifer, a Rabbi of Czernovitz, is quoted by Major Francis Yeats-Brown as follows: "The German Jews have avoided the fundamental questions of history, and have looked at the world through rosecolored glasses. They were advocates of assimilation, they believed in Liberalism, and that anti-Semitism was a passing phase to be cured by propaganda. They thought they could evade the course of history by declaring themselves Germans of the Mosaic faith, by denying the existence of the Jewish nation, by severing all the ties that bound them to Jewry, and by striking out the word 'Zion' from their prayer books. "The German Jews fed themselves on false hope, overlooked reality, dreamed of cosmopolitanism, of the time of 83

Lessing and Mendelssohn. A n d this expressed itself in two ways; either they became Liberals, or they became the standard-bearers of Socialism. Both fields of activity furnished new food to anti-Semitism. "In all good faith, to serve themselves and humanity, the Jews began to reach actively into the life of the German people. We trusted to the rights of democracy, and felt ourselves as equal citizens of the State, posed as censors, poured satire upon the Germans, considered ourselves as prophets, made revolutions, gave to the international proletariat a second Bible * * * The Jew Lasalle organized the masses. The Jew Edward Bernstein popularized the Marxian ideology; and the Jews Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg brought the Spartacist movement to life. In Bavaria the Jew Kurt Eisner seized power. Against all this the German nation rebelled. She wanted to forge her own destiny and determine the future of her own children. Can we blame her? * * * "Let us try to understand the Hitler regime. Have not we Jews rebelled and conducted bloody wars against everything foreign? What were the wars of the Maccabees but protests against a foreign, non-Jewish way of life? And of what else did the long fight of the Prophets consist? Surely of nothing else than eliminating foreign elements and foreign gods, and of the keeping sacred the original nature of Jewry? Did we not rebel against the racially related Kings of the House of the Idumaeans? And did we not exclude the Samaritans from our community because they practiced mixed marriages? Why should not the German nationalists do the same? We must learn to look the truth in the face. " T o dodge facts solves no problem. What is occurring today in Germany will come tomorrow in Russia. We shall have to pay dearly for the crimes of the Communist system, and for the fact that Trotsky, Joffe, Zinoviev had leading posts in Soviet Russia. " D i d not thousands of Jews lose their lives in Hungary because the Jew Bela Kuhn erected a Soviet Republic on the soil of Stephan the Holy? Hungarian Jews paid very dearly for their prophet * * * Within the internationals the Jews are the most radical elements. German, French, Poles, Czechs have a home, and their internationalism lives itself out in Germany, France, Poland and Czecho-Slovakia. It is only the Jews who have no home. The Jews Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg, Kurt Eisner, Gustav Landauer: they, and the children of Liberalism, all surely desired the best, but they attained the opposite. They were cursed with blindness, they saw not the approach of catastrophe, they heard not the footfall of time — the heavy footfall of the Nemesis of history." From European Jungle by Francis Yeats-Brown, ps. 189-190. 84

" D r . Eugene Hamburger, a Jewish surgeon who became Commissioner for Agriculture, in Hungary, wrote to a Zionist correspondent: ' M y good fellow, we mean to ruin the Christian landlords first, then we shall send all the Christian officials and professors to the dogs: and when once the people have given in, and made up their minds to acquiesce in communism, we can give up talking about Palestine." Ibid. ps. 191-192. IN FRANCE "* * * In France, even more unprepared than this country, M. Leon Blum, M. Cot, M. Paul-Boncour and all their (Jewish) tribe were preaching the inevitability of conflict, and sometimes actually fomenting it." Ibid. P. 212. (These Jews have been recently indicted in France but M. Cot is hiding in America.) "To-day France is one of the most enjuivé countries in Europe. The headquarters of the Comintern for Western Europe is in Paris, and its offices are full of Jews." Ibid. P. 193. IN SPAIN "A few miles northwest of Guernica" (Spain) "a real atrocity occurred, of which little has been said. At Munguia stood the big Church of Santa Maria, used as a dancing hall by the Reds, with an inscription over the transept: 'May Franco die as Mola did!' " European Jungle, Ibid. p. 273. "* * * When the Anarchists retreated, they left a hidden mine, with a time fuse. Forty boys—a squad of young Requetes—were sweeping up litter, cleaning the desecrated altars, and some of them were climbing the dome to hoist the flag of Spain, when a terrific explosion buried them all. For hours their cries were heard by the terrified villagers, but they could not be rescued from the ruins." Ibid. P. 273. "Within twenty-four hours the burning and looting ceased, and massed executions took their place. How many people were shot and shoveled wholesale into pits' has not yet been ascertained, but they numbered at least 10,000. (In Madrid at least 50,000 were murdered, and in Barcelona more than that number. The total of Communist murders committed in Spain is believed to be 300,000, but it will be some time before the world can learn the exact figures.) There was no trial: merely an order from one of the gangs which controlled the city — Anarchists, Trotskyists, Marxists, or the several kinds of Socialists." Ibid. p. 279. 85

"Presumably Lord Halifax did not know then of the torture prison in Barcelona (even if our Secret Service had reported it to the Foreign Office, it might well have escaped his attention in the press of events), and he could not have known that the prisoners confined there would be taken by the Republicans toward the French frontier as hostages, and that at Pont des Molins on February 7th the Republicans would shoot the Bishop of Teruel and forty-one other elderly men, innocent of any crime except anti-Communism." Ibid. p. 285. "In the sight of God the life of a Bishop is doubtless no more than that of a butcher (referring to the murder in Spain of the Bishop of Teruel and forty-one other anti- Communists), but to us his liquidation cannot but seem more dramatic: it serves once again to remind us of our (the British) extraordinary tenderness toward the regime of the Left, especially as his murder is only one of a round dozen of Spanish bishops. When the Jews in Germany had their shops looted and synagogues burned, our condemnation was loud and bitter, but the atrocities of the anti-Fascist seem to arouse no general indignation." Ibid. Ps. 285-286. " 'The Bishop and those who were shot with him,' we read in The Times of March 6th, 1939, 'formed part of some 800 Nationalist prisoners who left Barcelona as General Franco's forces advanced on the city. * * * The Bishop of Teruel was included in those separated from the main body of prisoners. A shepherd heard the shots being fired, and the forty-two bodies were later found. W i t h the Bishop perished a Canon of Teruel Cathedral, a Lieutenant-Colonel of the Civil Guard, a Captain of the Legionaries, and Colonel Rey d'Ancourt. These were the only bodies which could be identified amongst the charred remains in the ravine where they were found." Ibid. p. 286. " A t Brunete, which I visited a few days after the battle, the ruins of the village were still strewn with the discarded harness of war, including many Russian bayonets and French carbines, and piles of Czech ammunition. There were 45 prisoners in a house nearby, of whom 30 were French and 5 Czech. I saw also some British prisoners. (One of them said: ' M y name is Levi. I'm a Canadian!')." Ibid. p. 288. " * * A l l countries, manifested themselves in Spain: burnings, bombings, strikes, and murders, accompanied, as usual, by sexual propaganda among the young. Professor Peers tells us that 'pornographic literature was prominently fea86

tured in kiosks and bookshops, and, with Marxist literature, was sold outside the very entrances of the churches." Ibid. p. 293. "This revolution, against a lawfully constituted Government with a Right majority of 275 members in the Cortes, met with no reprobation from the Left-Wing Press in England, or from the duped public of the United States." Ibid. p. 295. * * * one must suppose that the British Foreign Office was acting under orders to please the Left-Wing supporters of the Government when it asked for the help of the U . S . S.R." Ibid. p. 266. "It is obvious that the U.S.S.R. will encourage Europe to a conflict on the largest possible scale, but that her participation will be confined to picking up the pieces when the captains and the kings depart." Ibid. p. 266. IN ENGLAND "It was important for us, (Mr. Lloyd George told the House of Commons recently, June 19, 1936), "to seek every legitimate help we could get. We came to the conclusion, from information we received from every part of the world, that it was vital we should have the sympathies of the Jewish communities." European Jungle, Ibid. p. 196. What do we have here? The admission by the Premier of the greatest Empire in history then under attack, it should have the support of the Jew in order to survive. How hath the mighty fallen! To continue with Major Yeats-Brown: "So what did we do? We sold the Arabs to win the favor of the Jews, especially the Jews of the United States of America. M r . L l o y d George justified this action by claiming that we had to reward Dr. Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist leader, who 'saved the British Army at a moment when a particular ingredient essential for our guns was exhausted.' But were we unable to find anything which was ours to give to Dr. Weizmann?" Ibid. p. 196. This question of Zionism and what the Zionists want is important to all Americans today. We know that it was this Jewish body which, more than any other influence, tricked us into entering the World War. What we do not know, apparently, is how they dictate American opinion today. We know that English Jews 87

opposed British efforts against Germany in the World War until they were assured that the English, rather than the Germans, would give them Palestine. A n d that when they were thus assured, as Lloyd George intimates, they brought America into the war. What is Palestine? Palestine is Arab land and it was promised its security by England in the World War on the condition that it support the Allies. But what happened? We all know. England betrayed the Arabs. A n d today — when we hear from every side that Palestine represents the spiritual and physical home of the Jews —the unhappy, persecuted Jews, who, for all the long centuries, have yearned for this "homeland"—we ask ourselves, What is Palestine today? What does it represent? Again we quote Major YeatsBrown: * * the Palestine Economic Corporation, which controls the Central Bank of Co-Operative Institutions, the Loan Bank, the Palestine Mortgage and Credit Bank, Palestine Mining Syndicate, Ltd., Bayside Land Corporation, Ltd., and Palestine Hotels, Ltd., may be said to be the real owner —or at any rate a very important real estate owner—of Palestine. A n d who, we may ask, are the directors of this great financial syndicate? They are twenty-four gentlemen of New York, with only one British-sounding name among them— David A. Brown. It is a safe bet that the ancestors of the majority of these gentlemen, whose interests are being safeguarded by British soldiers in Palestine, once worshipped the Golden Calf. For them we are risking our traditional friendship with the whole Islamic world.' European Jungle, Ibid. p. 199. "While we were in a ferment of fury over the woes of the Abyssinians and while we were subscribing four hundred and fifty thousands pounds for the Jews in Germany, there were 7,000,000 people living on these islands (British Isles) in condition euphemistically described as 'below the margin of subsistence'—that is, in misery and want * *" Ibid. p. 352. "This instinctive dislike of Jews en masse by other races is a fact, explain it as we may. It has persisted down the ages." Ibid. p. 176. "In England we find the Jews established in A. D. 740. William the Conqueror favored them. When Richard Couer de Lion was crowned in 1189, pogroms broke out in London, Norwich, Edmundsbury, Stamford, and York. Under Henry III they were accused of clipping the coin of the realm and were compelled to pay 33% of their property into the E x chequer. In 1290 they were expelled * * and did not return in any numbers until the time of Cromwell." Ibid. Ps. 193-194. 88

"Jews are not popular with insurance companies. The more our native doctors, dentists, and professors see of Jews the less they like them. They are not popular among the workers in the wholesale dress trade, where they predominate, and where they make women work long hours for small pay. Nor are they popular in the East End of London. Indeed, in England affection for Jews seems to vary inversely with the square of their distance. * *" Ibid. p. 194. "Lord Buckmaster, then Lord Chancellor, was more emphatic. He declared that the McMahon-Hussein correspondence 'showed unmistakably that there had not been something in the nature of casual inconsistency between different announcements at various times, as Lord Grey suggested, but that a deliberate pledge had been given on the one hand, and had been abandoned on the other.' Nothing could be plainer. It is deplorable that Mr. Winston Churchill should ever have prostituted his talents by upholding the quite untenable proposition that Palestine had not been promised to the Arabs." Ibid. p. 197. "I would not allow any more Jews to enter England, but I would like every Jew born in this country to be proud of his British citizenship. I would like every Jew to be asked if he wants to be an Englishman or a Zionist. The two are incompatible. If he wants to be an Englishman he should disinterest himself entirely in Zionism, and in all Jewish international affairs, except religious affairs. It should be clearly understood that no Jew can have two political loyalties. "If, on the other hand, a Jew desires to be a Zionist, then, even if he cannot immediately go to Zion (wherever that Dominion may in due course be established) he should be given a Zionist passport, and not be allowed to take part in the political life of Great Britain, though he would be treated with all the courtesy due to a foreigner." Ibid. p. 201. "In England, where it is possible to be blind to a great deal that is happening in the world, we have only lately been awakened to the Jewish problem. Even as late as last summer, when I suggested to a friend that there were powerful influences in the British press which kept the public from realizing the gravity of the situation in Palestine, * * *" European Jungle, p. 173. "We have five of the great ports in the world: London, Liverpool, Calcutta, Hongkong, Montreal. 'We control half the world's supply of cattle, of coal, of jute, of palm-oil, of rice, rubber seeds, and tin.' The oil of Mosul and the gold of South Africa are in our keeping. The manufacturing 89

power and mineral resources of the Empire are among the greatest in the world. Let us seize our opportunities." Ibid. ps. 351-352. * * We must not be involved in a war to make the world safe for Stalin or international Jewry. Those of us who wish to uphold the French and British Empires have nothing in common with those who wish to destroy Germany and Italy. We do not want to destroy these Empires, unless their demands are impossible to accept. So far the only impossible demand has been made by the Communists, who desire to dominate the world with their system." Ibid. ps. 354-355. "In the midst of German life," wrote Walter Rathenau, once Foreign Minister of the Weimar Republic, and himself a Jew, "is a separated, strange race of people, strikingly clothed, hot-blooded, with animated features: an Asiatic horde on the sand of the Prussian marches. They live in congested groups, foreign organisms in the body of the population. The State has made them citizens and educated them to be Germans, but they have remained foreign." This was written by a German Jew about the influx of Russian, Polish, Ukranian, and Lithuanian Jews into Germany. These are the Ashkenazic Jews who have been and are now invading America. Add to this the Treaty of Versailles, dominated by Jews and the League of Nations, plus disarmament and the multiple encroachments of the Jews upon the new German Republic and you have Hitler. Hilaire Belloc, is a graduate of Oxford and an eminent writer, who served in the British Parliament. John Buchan, (Lord Tweedsmuir), recently Governor General of Canada, says in "Pilgrims Way", p. 49, of Hilaire Belloc, "no man has written purer or nobler prose in the great tradition." This statement of Buchan was made after Hilaire Belloc had published what we are about to quote. Belloc states: "The positive side of Jewish Communism as expressed by Mordecai himself (Marx) and by all the other exponents of it, Jew and Gentile, is their insistence on the control of the means of production, distribution and exchange, by officials of the community — which turn out in practice to be in large proportion Jewish." The Jews, by Hilaire Belloc, 1937 edition, Foreword. "It is objected of the Jew in finance, in industry, in commerce — where he is ubiquitous and powerful out of all proportion to his numbers — that he seeks, and has already almost reached, dominion. It is objected that he acts everywhere against the interests of his hosts; that these are being interfered with, guided, run against their w i l l ; that a power 90

is present which acts either with indifference to what we love or in active opposition to what we love. Notably it is said to be indifferent to, or in active opposition against our national feelings, our religious traditions, and the general culture and morals of Christendom which we have inherited and desire to preserve: that power is Israel." Ibid. Ps. 44-45. "Bolshevism stated the Jewish problem with a violence and insistence such that it could no longer be denied either by the blindest fanatic or the most resolute liar." Ibid. Ps. 45-46. " * * * from the years after Waterloo to the years immediately succeeding the defeat of the French in 1870-71, the weight and position of the Jew in Western civilization increased out of all knowledge and yet without shock, and almost without attracting attention. They entered the Parliaments everywhere, the English Peerage as well, and the Universities in very large numbers. A Jew became Prime Minister of Great Britain, another a principal leader of the Italian resurrection: another led the opposition to Napoleon III. They were present in increasing numbers in the chief institutions of every country. They began to take positions as fellows of every important Oxford and Cambridge college; they counted heavily in the national literatures: Browning and Arnold families in England, for instance, Mazzini in Italy. They came for the first time into European diplomacy. The armies and navies alone were as yet untouched by their influence * * The growth of an anonymous Press and of an increasingly anonymous commercial system further extended their power." Ibid. p. 47. "The Jews intermarried everywhere with the leading families and, before any sign that a turn of the tide had taken place, they had already achieved that position in which they are now being assailed * * *" Ibid. p. 48. "Within a few years Rome was to see a Jewish Mayor, who supported with all his might the unchristianizing of the city and especially of its educational system * * * One small but significant factor in the whole business of these 70's and early 80's—the beginning of the last quarter of the nineteenth century—was the rise to monopoly of the Jewish international news agents, among which Reuters was prominent, and the presence of Jews as international correspondents of the various great newspapers, the most prominent example being Opper, a Bohemian Jew, who concealed his origin under the false name of 'de Blowitz', and for years acted as Paris correspondent for The Times, a paper in those days of international influence." Ibid. ps. 48-49. "The Panama Scandals in the French Parliament had 91

already fed the movement (anti-Semitism) in France. The later Parliamentary scandals in England, Marconi and the rest, afforded so astonishing a parallel to Panama that the similarity was of universal comment." Ibid. p. 51. "After Karl Marx came a crowd of his compatriots, who led the industrial proletariat in rebellion against the increasing power of the capitalist system, and began to organize a determined revolt.' Ibid. p. 53. "* * * the Bolshevist movement, or rather explosion, was Jewish. * * The Bolshevist Movement, was a Jewish movement, but not a movement of the Jewish race as a whole." Ibid. p. 55. "But when in 1917 a socialist revolution was accomplished suddenly at one blow, in one great State, and when its agents, directors and masters were seen to be a close corporation of Jews with only a few non-Jewish hangers-on (each of these controlled by the Jews through one influence or another), it was quite another matter. The thing had become actual. The menace to national traditions and to the whole Christian ethic of property was immediate." Ibid. ps. 56-57. "The thing was called 'The Republic of the Workmen and Peasants'. It was, in fact, nothing of the sort. It was the pure despotism of a clique, the leaders of which had been specially launched upon Russia under German direction * * * and all those Leaders, without exception, were Jews, or held by the Jews through their domestic relations, and all that followed was done directly under the orders of Jews, the most prominent of whom was one Braunstein, who disguised himself under the assumed name of Trotsky. A terror was set up, under which were massacred innumerable Russians of the Government classes, so that the whole framework of the Russian State disappeared. Among these, of course, must specially be noted great numbers of the clergy, against whom the Jewish revolutionaries had a particular grudge. A clean sweep was made of all the old social organizations, and under the despotism of this Jewish clique the old economic order was reversed." Ibid. p. 58. " * * * it is impossible, with their Jewish Committees thus in control of the Russian treasury and of Russian means of communications, that they should not have had some sympathy with their compatriots who were so largely in control of Western finance. However sincere their detestation of capitalism * * * it is in the nature of things that one of their blood and kind should, however misguided they may think him, appeal to them more than one of ours. And it is this which explains the half alliance which you find throughout the world between the Jewish financiers on the one hand 92

and the Jewish control of the Russian revolution on the other. It is this which explains the half-heartedness of the defense against Bolshevism, the continued negotiations, the perpetual commercial protest, the recognition of the Soviet by our politicians * * * all that has taken place wherever Jewish finance is powerful * * *." Ibid. p. 61. "There is no race which has produced so few traitors. It is not treason in the Jew to be international. It is not treason in the Jew to work now for one interest among those who are not of his people, now for another. He can only be charged with treason when he acts against the interests of Israel, and there is no nation nor ever has been one in which the national solidarity was greater or national weakness in the shape of traitors less." Ibid. p. 78. "He will serve France against the Germans, or the Germans against France, and he will do so indifferently as a resident in the country he benefits or the country he wounds: for he is indifferent to either. The moment war breaks out the intelligence departments of both sides rely upon the Jew: and they rely upon him not only on account of his indifference to nationalism but also on account of his many languages, his travel, the presence of his relations in the enemy country. A n d this is true not only of war but of armed peace. But it is clear that in all this there are examples of what in us, would be treason. In him such actions are not treason, for he does not betray Israel. But they all have an atmosphere repellent to us. They are things which if we did them (or when we do them) degrade us. They do not degrade the Jew." Ibid. ps. 78-79. The aforementioned references remind us of the common accusation — made in all wars of the past — that the Jews passed between the enemy and friendly lines unhampered. There are available countless records of such movements in the police and intelligence records of every army. They account for the entirely reasonable suspicion that the Jew is not to be trusted when one's country is at war. Belloc continues: "There is already something like a Jewish monopoly in high finance. There is a growing tendency to Jewish monopoly over the state for instance, the fruit trade in London, and to a great extent the tobacco trade. There is the same element of Jewish monopoly in the silver trade, and in the control of various other metals, notably lead, nickel, quicksilver. What is most disquieting of all, this tendency to monopoly is spreading like a disease. One province after another falls under it and it acts as a most powerful irritant. * * The thing is deservedly hated because it is exceedingly 93

unnatural and exceedingly tyrannical. * * It is intolerable in a people alien to us." Ibid. ps. 91-92. In this connection — the Jewish monopoly — we are even more unfortunate in the United States than in England. In America the Jew dominates the metropolitan Press through control of its advertising, particularly that of the great department stores, which furnish the bulk of newspaper profit: and through the control of the newspapers, the control of the wire and news services. Their domination of the stage, moving pictures and radio industries is too blatant for argument. The T w i n Giants of Communication in the United States today are David Sarnoff, Russian Jew, of the Radio Corporation of America, owner of the National Broadcasting Company, and William S. Paley, son of a Russian Jew, of the Columbia Broadcasting Company. The other big radio net-work, the Mutual system, though nominally headed by a Gentile, is largely dominated by the Jewish department stores, L. Bamberger & Co., R. H. Macy & Co., and the Strauss family. As reported in the Times-Herald of August 14, 1940, David Sarnoff, Russian Jew, President of the Radio Corporation of America, owner of the war-mongering National Broadcasting Co., in consultation with ex-Senator George Moses of New Hampshire, operated in 1932 to obtain a postponement of an anti-trust case against the Radio Corporation of America until after the election of President Roosevelt, an intimate friend of Sarnoff's. Ex-Senator Moses, though defeated for reelection, still is a powerful figure among the Republicans in northern New England and an ardent pro-Jew, Tory, and war-monger. Sarnoff admitted paying out large sums of money to get a continuance of the case. In Westbrook Pegler's column of October 4, 1940, it is stated: "* * * there may have been some transaction comparable on the score of propriety with the retention of Charlie Michaelson (a Jew) by a big radio corporation as a Washington 'front', at a salary of $20,000, while he carried a latchkey to the White House and was so folksy with the President that he used to sit in on the regular press conferences, right under the flag. How do you like the idea of a corporation 'front' man practically living in the White House?" We do not know how much more Michaelson (a Jew) gets as publicity man and smearer for the Democratic National Committee. Precisely as in Berlin, Vienna and Prague (ante Hitler), the Jewish dominance of the professions of Law and Medicine is fast becoming a peril, especially in the big cities along the Atlantic Sea94

board. Of late years the disproportion of Jews in Law and Medicine in Eastern cities of the United States has increased to a highly dangerous stage. Only two years ago, a number of German and Austrian Jews, holding certificates to practice medicine in those countries, arrived in New York. They immediately applied for the right to practice. After objecting strenuously to the alleged "discrimination" of the New York Board of Regents who "heartlessly" required them to pass the regular professional tests imposed upon all citizens, they were finally forced to submit to these tests. According to statistics released at that time only about 10% were found to be qualified to practice. The failures set up a wail which was heard in Washington, and the Jewish members of Congress, almost as one, were bombarded with petitions calling upon the Federal Government to intervene and set aside the rulings of the New York Board of Regents, whose standards, incidentally, have had much to do with the high quality of medical practice in that state. While this attempt to undermine our professional standards was going on, much further proof of the Jewish tendency toward monopoly was coming to light. Jews almost "monopolize" the lists of doctors forbidden to practice by reason of unethical or illegal practice. They have recently figured in the abortion racket in Brooklyn. Jews predominate in the lists of lawyers disbarred from practice for illegal and unethical conduct. The Jew in the underworld has become almost a monopoly. It is reliably reported that 90% of the wholesale liquor business, 90% of the liquor producers and a very high percentage of liquor retailers — the latter in the large cities — are Jewish. Along the Atlantic seaboard the Jewish domination of newspaper and magazine distribution is almost complete, to such extent at least that no regular news-stand will carry matter telling the truth about organized World Jewry. The Frankfurters, Brandeis's, Cardozo's, Untermyers's, Liebowitz's, Ernst's, write and interpret our law, and their racial claque maintain a constant bombardment of propaganda celebrating their genius, and mocking the integrity and ability of non-Jewish lawyers and judges. The communistic "scientist", Einstein, has become the Moses of American science, not by the demonstrable brilliance of his works but by the screaming and shouting of his racial gallery. Let the American people attempt to defend their judgment on the type of books they are to read and Jew Morris Ernst rises to mock them as "puritanical and narrow-minded." Jewish money, donated by the arch-"liberal", the late A. L. Filene, a Jew, of Boston, financed the 95

Institute for Propaganda Analysis which pretends to interpret all pronouncements on public policy, but which manages to follow a course indistinguishable from the "party line" laid down by the Communist Party. Henry Morgenthau controls our national fiscal policy and a little group of New Dealers, invariably disciples of the Jew Felix Frankfurter, and predominantly Jewish, write our laws and control our national political policy. The assumption of Jewish power in the United States today has very nearly reached the height achieved in England. This is a subject that will be discussed in detail in a subsequent chapter. Again the words of Hilaire Belloc: "The reason these general monopolies are formed by Jews is that the Jew is international, tenacious and determined upon reaching the very end of his task. He is not satisfied in any trade until that trade is, as far as possible, under his complete control, and he has for the extension of that control the support of his brethren throughout the world. He has at the same time the international knowledge and international indifference which further aid his efforts. But even were the quite recent monopolies in metal and other trades taken, as they ought to be taken, from these few alien masters of them, there would remain that partial monopoly * * * which a few Jews have exercised not only today, but recurrently throughout history, over the highest finance: that is. over the credit of the nations, and therefore today, as never before, over the whole field of the world's industry." The Jews. P. 94. A recurrent complaint—and a justified one—against the Jew is his habit of secrecy, his tendency to change his name with or without changing his citizenship. A name—to a non-Jew—is a personal passport to respectable society. Only the criminal habitually turns to secrecy to conceal his identity. Belloc's discussion of this tendency is to the point. "It has unfortunately now become a habit for so many generations, that it has almost passed into an instinct throughout the Jewish body, to rely upon the weapon of secrecy. Secret societies, a language kept as far as possible secret, the use of false names in order to hide secret movements, secret relations between various parts of the Jewish body: all these and other forms of secrecy have become the national method." Ibid. P. 99. "Take the particular trick of false names. It seems to us particularly odious. We think when we show our contempt for those who use this subterfuge that we are giving them 96

no more than they deserve. It is a meanness which we associate with criminals and vagabonds; a piece of crawling and sneaking." Ibid. P. 100. Belloc goes on to cite certain instances of Jews assuming Gentile names. In a discussion of the influence of the Jew upon our foreign policy, especially as it relates to England, his statement is important. He cites the change from Cohen to Curzon, from Solomon to Stanley, from Moses to Montague and from Benjamin to Benson as examples. "Men whose race is universally known," he says (Ibid. 102), " w i l l unblushingly adopt a false name as a mask, and after a year or two pretend to treat it as an insult if their original and true name be used in its place." The list of Jews, masquerading under distinguished non-Jewish names in the United States, is as long as it is startling. At the Jew's insistence upon his superiority, Belloc and many others, are rightfully indignant. There is a wealth of evidence to support the belief that this one trait, alone, is a sufficient explanation of, if not a justification for, a measure of anti-Semitism. Long before Disraeli said, "The Jew cannot be absorbed; it is not possible for a superior race to be absorbed by an inferior," Jews generally claim—before the world—that precisely because they are a superior people—God's chosen people—they are entitled to the special rights and privileges which go with superiority. " * * unfortunately he does not only repose on that foundation; he also acts upon it, and that is intolerable," says Belloc. Ibid. P. 112. "Thus, the Jew will write of our religion, taking it for granted that it is folly, and will marvel that we are offended. He will appear in our national discussions, not only giving advice, but attempting to direct policy, and will be puzzled to discover that his indifference to national feeling is annoying. He will postulate the Jewish temperament as something which, if different from ours, must, whether we like it or not, be thrust upon us." Ibid. P. 113. In the foreword to this volume, reference is made to the danger of discussing the Jewish problem. It is a virtually undenied fact that the Jew himself has worked to prevent any discussion of himself and his actions, however fortified by proof and under whatever reason or motive. The first of the weapons turned against the man who tries to bring this subject into the open is ridicule. To quote Belloc again: 97

"It was (is) the instinctive policy with the mass of the Jewish nation, a deliberate policy with most of its leaders, not only to use ridicule against anti-Semitism but to label as 'anti-Semitic' any discussion of the Jewish problem at all, or, for that matter, any information even on the Jewish problem. * * If a man alluded to the presence of a Jewish financial power in any region—for instance—in India, he was an anti-Semite. If he interested himself in the peculiar character of Jewish philosophical discussions, especially in matters concerning religion, he was an anti-Semite. If the emigrations of the Jewish masses from country to country, the vast modern invasion of the United States, for instance (which has been organized and controlled like an army on the march), interested him as an historian, he could not speak of it under pain of being called an anti-Semite. If he exposed a financial swindler who happened to be a Jew, he was an anti-Semite. If he exposed a group of Parliamentarians taking money from the Jews, he was called an antiSemite. If he did no more than call a Jew a Jew, he was an anti-Semite. Ibid. Ps. 160-161. " Y o u cannot long confuse interest with hatred, the statement of plain and important truths with mania, the discussion of fundamental questions with silly enthusiasm, for the same reason that you cannot long confuse truth with falsehood. Sooner or later people are bound to remark that the defendant seems curiously anxious to avoid all investigation of his case. * * I say it was a fatal policy: but it was deliberately undertaken by the Jews." Ibid. P. 161. Belloc's discussion of the Jewish part in the Communist movement, along with considerable evidence on the subject is treated in another chapter. He reaches the conclusion quite properly, that the fact that the Jew has directed and still directs the course of Communism is a sufficient argument for bringing the question of the Jew to the forefront. Belloc's words about the Jew in America are significant, since they represent the judgment of a brilliant and capable Englishman— one of the world's great writers and historians. "A regular and organized Jewish emigration began to pour in (the U. S.), especially from the Baltic. It flooded New York * * * it created ghettoes in most of the large Northern industrial towns and all the phenomena we associate in Europe with these movements began to show themselves. There was the growth of the financial monopoly and of monopolies in particular trades. There was the clamour for toleration in the form of 'neutralizing' religious teaching in schools; there was the appearance of the Jewish 98

revolutionary and of the Jewish critic in every tradition of Christian life. * * Anonymity in the Press came, of course." Ibid. P. 202. Earlier in these pages, we referred to the fact that when we are asked to defend the England of today, it is not the England of our ancestors—the "mother country" who asks our arms and men, but a mongrel England, ruled not by Britons of the blood, but, largely by a galaxy of Jews, half-Jews, and quarter-Jews. Again we quote Belloc, "London became after Waterloo the money market and the clearing house of the world. * * Every new economic enterprise of the British state appealed to the Jewish genius for commerce and especially for negotiation in its most abstract form—finance. * * The two things dovetailed one into the other and fitted exactly, and all subsidiary activities fitted in as well. The Jewish news agencies of the nineteenth century favoured England in all her policy, political as well as commercial; they opposed those of her rivals and especially of her enemies. The Jewish knowledge of the East was at the service of England (Opium Wars — Indian Conquest). His international penetration of the European governments was also at her service—so was his secret information. * * The Jew might almost be called a British agent upon the Continent of Europe and still more in the Near and Far East. * * He was admitted to every institution in the State, a prominent member of his nation became chief officer of the English executive, and, an influence more subtle and penetrating, marriages began to take place, wholesale, between what had once been the aristocratic territorial families of this country and the Jewish commercial fortunes. "After two generations of this, with the opening of the twentieth century those of the great territorial English families in which there was no Jewish blood were the exception. In nearly all of them was the strain more or less marked, in some of them so strong that though the name was still an English name and the tradition those of a purely English lineage of the long past, the physique and character had become wholly Jewish and the members of the family were taken for Jews whenever they travelled in countries where the gentry had not yet suffered or enjoyed this admixture." Ibid. Ps. 222-223. "Every English Government had (and has) its quota of Jews. They had entered the diplomatic service and the House of Lords; they swarmed in the House of Commons, in the Universities, in all the Government offices save the Foreign Office (and even there representatives of the Jewish nation have recently entered); they were exceedingly power99

ful in the Press; they were all powerful in the C i t y " (viz. in banking and finance). Ibid. P. 226. This is a picture of Jewish dominance of Europe, presented with sympathy and without passion by writers of integrity. The England which today beseeches us to come to her rescue is little more than another segment of the Jewish "nation"—as Belloc puts it. The Jews have often strongly influenced France—seldom dominated it. The short rule of Leon Blum is one such instance and results recently were summarized in a letter to the New York Times. On the eve of the opening of the French Popular Front Legislature Leon Blum, Premier-designate, said: "We are going to try to assure passage from a capitalist to a Socialist regime * * * it is not possible any longer to save a bourgeois society." The administration of the Jew Leon Blum begot the sit-down strike in France, which was almost immediately transplanted to America by the Communists. Our own internationalists, who plead with us to spend our blood, our heritage and our money in their defense are but the spokesmen of international Jewry. We first felt the powerful impact of their influence when, against reason, honor and enlightened self-interest, they tricked us into the World War. The Zionist movement was the active political factor—the "engineer" of this betrayal. T o day organized World Jewry, and not the Zionists alone, are working night and day to betray us again. A detailed discussion of the greatest fraud in history—the background of our entry into the World War—was discussed in a preceding chapter. It is more than passing strange, that George Washington and nearly all of our Anglo-Saxon forefathers and patriots are insulted and their principle mocked, while the very Jews who assail them and plot to destroy their principles are celebrated. It is more than passing strange that the average American may speak his piece, condemning anyone who offends his sense of right and justice, yet is forbidden to ask. "What of the Jew"? Strange and tragic is it that the American who loves his homeland and its great tradition must abandon his concept of patriotism, even his understanding of it, rooted in struggle and pain, and growth of Americanism is left to an Einstein to translate, a Bloom or a Dickstein to protect and a Brandeis or a Frankfurter to interpret. Somehow, without our knowledge—because we are not a suspicious people—this has come about. We have assumed, in our honesty and inherent decency, that we were immune from this afflic100

tion. Yet it is here and we must deal with it. Unhappily, there is a residue of our own proud race and name, which is almost psychopathically more concerned with the welfare of the Jews than with that of Americans. Proudly they parade sympathy with the problems of the world as if we had none of our own.


IX JEWS AND C O M M U N I S M "First Witch: Round about the cauldron go: In the poison'd entrails throw. Toad, that under cold stone Days and nights has thirty-one Swelter'd-venom sleeping got, Boil thou first i' the charmed pot. A l l : Double, double, toil and trouble: Fire burn and cauldron bubble. Second Witch: Fillet of a fenny snake, In the cauldron boil and bake; Eye of newt, and toe of frog, W o o l of bat, and tongue of dog, Adder's fork, and blind-worm's sting, Lizard's leg, and owlet's wing, For a charm of powerful trouble, Like a hell-broth boil and bubble. A l l : Double, double, toil and trouble; Fire burn and cauldron bubble. Third Witch: Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf, Witches' mummy, maw and gulf Of the ravin'd salt-sea shark, Root of hemlock digg'd i' the dark, Liver of blaspheming Jew, Gall of goat, and slips of yew Silver'd in the moon's eclipse, Nose of Turk, and Tartar's lips, Finger of birth-strangled babe Ditch-deliver'd by a drab. Make the gruel thick and slab: Add thereto a tiger's chaudron. For the ingredients of our cauldron. All: Double, double, toil and trouble; Fire burn and cauldron bubble." Shakespeare's "Macbeth". 102

The Communist movement in the United States, despite arguments to the contrary, is stronger than ever before in its sordid history. The alliance between Stalin and Hitler, concluded just before their joint invasion of Poland, despite the ardent courtship of the Soviet by the United States, Britain and France, had the effect of driving a few members of the Party from its ranks and caused great anguish to certain fellow-travelers and United Front organizations. But it did not seriously affect either the Party or its program. According to competent testimony—some of which w i l l probably have reached the public eye by this time—such "facade" units as The American League for Peace and Democracy have already changed their names and are now active in a new guise, though with substantially the same leadership. While they might suffer momentary nausea at being associated with Der Fuehrer, the possibility of the loot in heroic quantities, that may fall to them with Hitler's victory, is enough to calm their queasy stomachs. What is often overlooked, however, by those who prefer the wish to the fact, is that much of the opposition to Soviet Russia and its leader, Stalin, indeed, much of the most damaging testimony against this particular brand of Communism, is furnished by such Jews as Eugene Lyons, Alex Trachtenberg, Gen. Krivitsky (Schmelka Ginsberg), D. H. Dubrovsky, Ben Gitlow and others; and, it is significant to note, none of these expert witnesses has repudiated Communism per se. They oppose Stalin and Stalinism—not Communism. The leader of the movement called "true" Communism has been our old dear brutal, bloody, brilliant, sinister Leon Trotsky (alias Braunstein). Trotsky's last abode was in Mexico—a strongly Communistic state, by the way, and one increasingly active in defense of the Party Line. Trotsky was also head of the Fourth International, the avowed guardian of the doctrine of Marx and Lenin. Mexico, like Soviet Russia, a pet of the New Deal, has been for years and still is being subsidized by the purchase at an inflated price of millions of dollars of silver, and has been permitted to confiscate hundreds of millions of dollars of American property, with only a gentle slap on the wrist from our State Department. According to a recent newspaper article by New Dealers Pearson and Allen, our Department of Justice was giving favorable consideration to inviting Trotsky to America from Mexico to help us catch Stalinite Communists. The aforementioned gentry—whose "reform" dates, as does that of half-Jew William Bullitt, from the day Stalin purged Russia of "old Bolsheviks"—are almost without exception Jews. They argue that Stalin, a bloody Asiatic, is no longer a Communist. It is doubt103

ful if Stalin ever was a Communist. According to Lenin, who should have known, Stalin was an opportunist and a revolutionist. But a Communist, no. The Jews Gitlow, Dubrovsky, Krivitsky and Lyons have repudiated Stalin but they have not repudiated Communism and Trotsky. The secret of their defection may be found in the fact that, for some years, it has been whispered that Stalin is an anti-Semite. His slaughter of such old Bolsheviks as Apfelbaum alias Zinovieff, and Rosenfeld alias Kameneff, and his purge of Litvinoff (Finkelstein), Radek (Sobelsohn) and others of the race would seem to indicate something of the sort. It is also significant that Soviet Russia, the largest country in the world with vast undeveloped territory and resources, alone of all the great countries, did not hold out a friendly hand to the Jews cast out of German territory with the advent of Hitlerism. It is equally important, that while Jewish leaders and Jewish refugees strive frantically to persuade other nations to offer aid, shelter and protections, they made no such demand of Soviet Russia. And while it may be captious to speak of it, none of those noisy "liberals" who have taken up the Jewish cause have organized to provide them haven in Soviet Russia. Soviet Russia was, as has been shown, the product of Jewish philosophy, Jewish brains, Jewish capital and Jewish leadership, and anti-Semitism is still punished in Soviet Russia as "counter-revolution". W h y then, one reasonably asks, has not Soviet Russia solved this problem of dealing with the latest Jewish dispersion by opening the gates of the Promised Land? The obvious—and true—answer is that what we call Communism is today divided into two camps—Stalinism and Trotskyism. We may further conclude that the Trotskyite brand of Communism is much nearer the Marxian definition than the brand of Joseph Stalin. No true Marxist could have joined hands with Hitler—so the Jewish Communists rightly argue. Since the Stalin-Hitler pact, many Jews, frightened by the increasing and natural tendency of the public to identify Jewry with Communism, have argued somewhat after this manner: " N o w ! Y o u see? We told you that we Jews were not Communists! No Jewish movement could make common cause with Hitler". This argument is specious and deceptive since the High Priest of true Communism has been Leon Trotsky, a Jew, and his following predominantly Jewish. There is evidence at hand today that the Jews are leaving the American Communist Party—a creature of Stalin— 104

by droves and that they are affiliating with the Trotsky organization. The "exposures" of Gitlow, Lyons, et al, are exposures of Stalinism— not of Communism. The identification of the Jew with Communism is an historic thing. It is more than the expression of the temporary political objective of a "persecuted" people. It is the natural product of the Jewish mind—the political expression of his innermost spirit. For proof of this we propose to cite a document recently published. Harry Waton, of New York, a Jewish philosopher and disciple of Spinoza, published, in 1939, a book called A Program for the Jews and Humanity, sponsored by the Committee for the Preservation of the Jews. He states that the Spinoza Institute asked him to formulate his program. Out of this came the Committee for the Preservation of the Jews, under whose auspices, Waton discusses the Jew in terms of amazing boldness. Since it is impossible to deal with more than the high lights of Waton's analysis, we must content ourselves with that. Stating that his program is "not only for the Jews, but for the whole human race", Waton says that "my program should be accepted by non-Jews as well as Jews * * " After stating that fascism is a historical process, he says that the Jews are "masters of the situation". He says that "we shall be compelled to adopt fascist methods to meet the world situation," but that 'private capitalism can no longer function," and "with the death of private capitalism will also die all political and social institutions resting on private capitalism. * * " What w i l l take its place? Waton answers, "Once Socialism has been established, and all future social evolution would be towards a human society resting on universal communism, only then will all social problems be solved." This is his statement. He does not submit the question of what kind of a world it w i l l be if and when all social questions are solved. He goes on: "The state must take in hand the land and the mechanism of production and distribution, and it must determine their use in accordance with a national plan." He says that "state capitalism may come from below through a bloody revolution, as was the case in Soviet Russia; or it may come from above, as will likely be the case in this country." He goes on to argue that under this happy dispensation, "The only right that will be reserved to the individual will be the right 105

to work for the state upon terms and conditions determined by the state * * and that the state will "exploit the working class." Of the present state of affairs in this country he says, "Naive Americans still believe in the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution, but they do not realize that the Constitution has already fundamentally changed its character. President Roosevelt may honestly believe that he is not a dictator, and he may sincerely hate dictatorship; yet, from day to day, he becomes ever more and more a dictator." " A l l that is necessary," says Waton, "that in this country, state capitalism and fascism shall be completely established is a national emergency or a war. Once such national emergency or war comes—and it will inevitably come in the near future—in this country we shall have the state capitalism and fascism that we see in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany." He states that "President Roosevelt and his administration move in the direction of state capitalism." He adds that "Soviet Russia is the fatherland for all communists in the world, no matter where they are, and all communists owe primary allegiance to Soviet Russia." "In fighting against state capitalism and fascism," he says, "men are fighting against history; and he who fights against history is destroyed by history." He repeats (p. 40) "President Roosevelt, whether he is conscious of it or not, is a Stalin or a Hitler in the making. In the event of a national emergency or a war * * Roosevelt * * will assume dictatorial power * * *" Waton argues that "The only course the Jews in this Country can rationally follow is to recognize this inevitability and accept it." After a discussion of ways and means he states, "It therefore follows that the Jews should support Roosevelt and his measures that are in the direction of state capitalism and fascism." He insists that since mankind has not been able to prevent the exploitation of labor, the States should do it and that (p. 44) "the profit system must be abolished." He says that "If Christianity had no effect upon Christians, then Christianity has no reason for existence, and, since it has no reason for existence, it cannot and will not exist." He admits that " A s soon as the Jews appeared * * * anti-Semitism appeared" and that "the Jews differ from all other races and peoples because of Judaism." He says that "Judaism concerns itself only about this earth, and promises all reward right here on earth." He insists that " * * the Jews will 106

inherit this earth, and that all other races will either disappear altogether or they w i l l become Jews * * *" After a lengthy dissertation on the perfection of Judaism and its disregard for color and race, he says (p. 7 5 ) : "Communism is the destiny of mankind." " A n d this is especially the duty of the Jews: the Jews must identify themselves with Communism (later he says they have already done so), which means to identify themselves with history and human progress." In a statement, characteristically Jewish, he says (p. 7 7 ) : "Like Communism, internationalism is the foundation of society, it is the basis of all human progress, it is the hope of the working class, and it is the destiny of mankind." On page 79, he introduces again the idea of a "league of nations" in the statement, "Let all nations on earth become rational, let them enter into such a federation of nations as in this country we have a federation of states." Of the Jews he says (as did Brandeis): "But at the same time the Jews are also nationalists as Jews. The Jews, all over the world, no matter where they live, what language they speak, what mode of life they have, and what customs they follow—all Jews are identified with one another as one people" (p. 80). Waton describes Marxism as "nothing else than our old friends, communism and internationalism" and Nazism as nothing but an imitation of it. He lays claim to the Kingdom of God on Earth as "the highest virtue of Judaism", and insists that "the Jews must identify themselves with communism, with internationalism, with Marxism and with the working class." On Page 86 he says that "God chose the Jews as his people," and adds that the non-Jews only corrupted and distorted. He goes on to say that the "Jews never recognized a materialistic territorial state" and that "for this reason the Jewish state always was co-extensive with the Jewish people, and now that the Jews are spread over the whole earth, the Jewish state extends all over the earth." He adds that "This is the reason why the Jewish state is international and so powerful." He claims on p. 98 that "There is one work on sociology, and only one work, and that is Marx's Capital," and that "Only a Jew could write this work." He promises that Marxism will triumph! He says that " * * the Jews are the highest and most cultured people on earth" and that since this is true, "the Jews have a right to subordinate to themselves the rest of mankind and to be the 107

masters over the whole earth." He closes this theme by saying (p. 100), "The Jews will become the masters over the whole earth, and they will subordinate to themselves all nations, not by material power, not by brute force, but by light, knowledge, understanding, humanity, peace, justice and progress." A l l of this, it appears, is to come to us at the hands of those who deliberately starved to death and murdered at least five million men, women and children, good and bad alike: who flayed alive those who opposed them in Hungry, Bavaria, Russia and Spain, and whose catalogue of crimes still awaits a full recording for the very good reason that they, the Jews, do not wish it published. Probably no more complete glimpse of Jewish arrogance has ever been offered mankind than in Waton's book. An analysis of it could hardly be more profitably concluded than in Waton's own words. We find them on page 102: "The Aryans will enlarge and beautify the earth; but they will settle to enjoy the world which they created only in the tents of the Jews. These tents are communism, internationalism. * * * *" Several years ago M r . W. G. Pitt-Rivers, an English Christian, completed a manuscript on the Communist Revolution, The World Significance of the Russian Revolution, following his study of the subject in Soviet Russia. Rabbi Levy was a friend of his. Rabbi Levy, after reading the manuscript, consented to write a preface to the book in which Rabbi Levy states: "The question of the Jews and their influence on the world past and present, cuts to the root of all things, and should be discussed by every honest thinker * * the Jews * * are a sensitive Community, and thus very suspicious of any Gentile who tries to approach them with a critical mind." " Y o u point out * * * the great danger that springs from the prevalence of Jews in finance and industry, and from the preponderance of Jews in rebellion and revolution. Y o u reveal * * * the connection between the Collectivism of the immensely rich international Finance * * * and the international Collectivism of Karl Marx and Trotsky * * * and all this evil and misery, the economic as well as the political, you trace back to one source * * * the Jews. " N o w other Jews will v i l i f y and crucify you for these outspoken views. * * * I can defend you from the unjust attacks of my often too-impetuous race. * * There is scarcely an event in modern Europe that cannot be traced back to the Jews. * * the Semitic idea has finally conquered and entirely subdued this apparently irreligious universe of ours." (This 108

was written in 1920.) * * * Y o u yourself have a very strong foreboding about the Jews being the victims of their own theories and principles. * * " Dr. Levy continues: "This reproach of yours * * * is only too well justified, and upon this common ground I am quite willing to shake hands with you and defend you against any accusation of promoting race hatred: If you are an anti-Semite, I, the Semite, am an anti-Semite, too, and a much more fervent one than ever you are * * * We have erred * * * we have most grievously erred. A n d if there was any truth in our error, three thousand, two thousand, nay, a hundred years ago, there is nothing but falseness and madness, a madness that will produce an even greater misery and an even wider anarchy. I confess to you * * * We, who have posed as the saviours of the world, we, who have even boasted of having given it 'the' Saviour, we are to-day nothing else but the world's seducers, its destroyers, its incendiaries, its executioners * * * We, who have promised to lead you to a new Heaven, have finally succeeded in landing you in a new Hell * * * There has been no progress, least of all moral progress * * *" "* * * our last word is not yet spoken, our last deed is not done, our last revolution is not made. This last Revolution, the Revolution that will crown our revolutionary work, will be the revolution against the revolutionaries. It is bound to come and may be upon us now. The great day of reckoning is near." On page 193 of The Jews, Hilaire Belloc adds a single fateful postscript to the confession and prophecy of this great Jewish scholar: "The case of Dr. Levy, turned out of this country by his compatriots in the Government, for having written unfavourably of the Moscow Jews will be fresh in every one's memory." Rabbi Morris Lazaron of Baltimore, in the March 1938 issue of Opinion, leading Jewish journal edited by Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, is read out of the Jewish "nation" for daring to advise Jews not to set themselves up as a separate community, thinking constantly of their European brothers. In The World at the Cross Roads, Boris Brasol, quotes an illuminating statement by Woodrow Wilson made after the Russian Revolution: "Does not every American feel that assurance has been added to our hope for the future peace of the world by the wonderful and heartening things that have been happening within the last few weeks in Russia * * * The autocracy 109

* * * has been shaken off and the great generous Russian people have been added, in all their native majesty and might, to the forces that are fighting for freedom in the world, for justice and for peace." Brasol comments on this pronouncement of Wilson: "It is not impossible that M r . Wilson should have made such a misstatement, biased by some of his Jewish advisors, who might not have had a quarrel with the German people, but who certainly did have a quarrel with the Russian people. It will be remembered that at that time the White House was crammed with such men as Bernard Baruch, Justice Brandeis, Louis Marshall, the Warburgs and other leaders of American and International Jewry." Ibid. p. 159 Even M r . Winston Churchill, now Prime Minister of Great Britain, seemed once—despite his efforts on behalf of Jewish immigrants and his recent courtship of Soviet Russia—to have had an inkling of what was going on in Russia. On November 5, 1919, he said to the House of Commons: " N o sooner did Lenin arrive than he began to beckon a finger here and a finger there to obscure persons in sheltered retreats in New York, in Glasgow, in Berne, and other countries, and he gathered together the leading spirits of a formidable sect, the most formidable sect in the world, of which he was the high priest and chief. With these spirits around him he set to work with demoniacal ability, to tear to pieces every institution on which the Russian State depended. Russia was laid low. She had to be laid low. She was laid low in the dust." In European Jungle p. 180 it is stated: "In 1917, Lenin was smuggled into the Country (Russia) with four Jews, Peiba Bronstein (alias Trotsky), Apfelbaum (alias Zinoviev), Rosenfeld (alias Kamenev), and Sobelsohn (alias Radek), with the help of the Germans and a Jewish banking house in New York, and through the agency of Israel Lazarevitch Helphand, alias Parvus, a Russian Jew who made his fortune in Denmark out of German coal." M r . Yeats-Brown, author of European Jungle, goes on to say that, in 1935, the Soviet Russian delegation to the League of Nations (a statement which can probably be checked) consisted of one Georgian and seven Jews. 110

That the Communists early recognized Franklin D. Roosevelt as one of their own mind is apparent in the story filed by Donald Day, representative of the Chicago Tribune in the issue of October 27, 1933. Day says: "The usually vigilant Bolshevik censorship has made one of the worst blunders of its existence * * * The Soviet blunder consisted of the publishing by the central printing office of the Communist Party in Moscow of long instructions addressed to American Communist organizations under the headline: The Working Class in the United States and their benefactor—the Socialist Roosevelt." BENJAMIN GITLOW The individual histories of the Jews most prominent in the Communist movement are by now fairly well known to the American people. It might be well, however, to briefly discuss the life and record of that apostate from Stalinism, Benjamin Gitlow, whose autobiography, I Confess, recently appeared. Gitlow is the son of two Russian-Jewish refugees and was born in Elizabeth, New Jersey. During 1916 and 1917 he was, along with such distinguished revolutionaries as the late Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman, also Jews, active in the pacifist cause. He published the first Left Wing Socialist and Communist papers in this country. Revolutionary Age, Voice of Labor and The Communist. He helped to found the Communist Labor Party. He twice ran on the Communist ticket for Vice-President and once for Mayor of New York City. He was a member of the powerful Political Committee of the American Communist Party and its dominating Secretariat of Three. He was Secretary of the Party—the job now held by Earl Browder—in 1923, member of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, of the Red International of Trade Unions, and the leading Presidium of both Internationals. As such he visited the Soviet Union in 1927, 1928, and 1929. He was convicted under the Criminal Syndicalist Law in 1919, of advocating—to quote the Supreme Court decision (Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S. 652)—"in plain and unequivocal language, the necessity of accomplishing the 'Communist Revolution' by a militant and 'revolutionary Socialism.' " After three years in Sing Sing, he was pardoned by the Governor of New York, and was elected an honorary member of the Moscow Soviet while in prison. Throughout his autobiography, I Confess, runs a steady flow of illuminating confessions. When arrested on the charge for which he was jailed, he says that in America: 111

"The first news of the Tsar's overthrow was received with great rejoicing. It stimulated above all those elements in the party that comprised the Slavic and Jewish federations, because most of their members hailed from Tsarist Russia. These federations were: The Russian Federation, the Jewish Federation, the Ukrainian Federation, the Lithuanian Federation, the Esthonian Federation, the Polish Federation, the Lettish Federation and such allied Slavic federations as the Bulgarian and the Yugo-Slav. The Slavic language federations began to grow very rapidly. Those who had immigrated from Tsarist Russia began to look forward to the time when they would return to their native land, and as many as could left for Russia immediately. Among the latter were several staff members of the Novy Mir, Russian Socialist paper published in New York, such as, Leon Trotsky, Nicholas Bukharin, Volodarsky, who played stellar roles in the Bolshevik Revolution, and lesser luminaries, like Boris Reinstein. * * *" I Confess, P. 22. "* * In New York one of the prominent leaders of the New York Left Wing was Harry Waton, who conducted a Marxian study group." Ibid. P. 33. "* * About a tenth—roughly, six thousand members— were either American-born or belonged to the English-speaking branches. Of these, many were psychologically unfit for a revolutionary movement that sought to constitute itself the government of the United States. After the Chicago Conventions, both Communist parties were even more foreignborn in their complexion than the Left Wing had been." Ibid. P. 57. "* * We openly called for the violent overthrow of the United States Government. We isolated ourselves by attacking the A. F. of L. as an agent of the capitalist government and calling upon the workers to build new unions that would not be afraid to use their economic power for revolutionary purposes. When strikes took place we called upon the workers to turn them into revolutionary channels, the Communist Party actually calling upon them, as it did in the strike of the Brooklyn street car men, to overthrow the government and establish Soviets. We existed in a state of semi-legality, always expecting to be attacked and arrested." Ibid. P. 60. "Our attorneys succeeded in having our bail reduced to ten thousand dollars each, in either cash or Liberty Bonds. Dr. Julius Hammer supplied the Liberty Bonds." Ibid. P. 63. "Back in Sing Sing life was more pleasant. There we found Dr. Julius Hammer, serving a sentence for an illegal 112

abortion, having been betrayed to the authorities by political enemies, presumably." Ibid. Ps. 118-119. Dr. Hammer was in Moscow during Gitlow's visit there in 1929. "He (the prominent Jewish lawyer, Joseph Brodsky), further informed me that Justice Cardozo had signed the writ which made my release on bail possible." Ibid. Ps. 128-129. "The Supreme Court (268 U. conviction on criminal syndicalism seven to two, Justices Holmes and (Justice Holmes at this time was 84

S. 652) upheld my charges by a vote of Brandeis dissenting." years of age). Ibid. P. 226.

" A t the first Left Wing convention (in New York, Feb. 1919), there was plenty of talk * * * If talk could make revolution, the Left Wing would have won in the United States * * * a city committee of fifteen was elected to carry on its work. This committee consisted of the following: Nicholas I. Hourwich, Fanny Horowitz, Jay Lovestone (Liebstein), James Larkin, Harry Hilzik, Edward I. Lindgren, Milton Goodman, John Reed, Joseph Brodsky, Dr. Julius Hammer, Jeanette D. Pearl, Carl Brodsky, Mrs. L. Ravitch, Bertram D. Wolfe and myself." Ibid. P. 27. " O n the train I was informed of the circumstances that led to my pardon. The National Convention of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union was in session in Philadelphia. The sessions were torn by a bitter factional dispute * * * Sigman was trying to prevent the split * * * Those in the Left Wing who advocated a split, did so as a tactical maneuver, believing that, if a split should take place, Sigman would enter into negotiations with the Left Wing, * * * and would come to such terms with them as would result in the Left Wing virtually taking over the organization. Dr. Henry Moscowitz was present as 'the representative of the Governor' (Mrs. Belle Israels Moscowitz, wife of Dr. Henry Moscowitz, held many prominent positions under the Governor of New York and was Vice-Chairman of the Democratic National Committee). * * * It was arranged that, when the Governor received the telegram, we would wire back the convention that upon their request he had pardoned Gitlow. In fact, the convention was informed by 'the Governor * *' that he had released me hours before the official papers had been signed and the authorities at Sing Sing notified." Ibid. Ps. 285-286. 113

"Our negro program was originally built around the demand that the Negro people in the United States be accorded full racial, social and political equality * * * "I received a telegram from the National Office that, in addition to our regular Negro demands, I should add the demand for the right of the Negroes to national self-determination. This demand of the Comintern (the Communist International in Moscow) that the Negro movement in the United States be considered as a movement of national liberation, the ultimate objective of which was the establishment of an independent Negro state and government in the South, though it originated in Moscow, did not appeal to me * * * The demand for a Negro republic I considered dynamite, which would be so explosive in the South that it would do the Negroes more harm than good. "* * * when I returned to New York I made it my special point to discuss the whole question with Pepper, (Joseph Pogany). * * * I asked Pepper 'What do you want to do with this policy? Create a situation in the South where you will bring about a civil war between the whites and the blacks? Do you realize where that will lead to? Do you not realize that such a policy will lead to the butchery and massacre of thousands of Negroes?' " Ibid. Ps. 480-481. "* * the Communist organizational network is controlled and directed. It is not confined to the Communist Party alone, because, due to the Party's support of the New Deal and the C. I. O., it reaches into practically every walk of American life. The C. I. O. has augmented the Communistic machine politically and financially beyond the fondest hopes of the Communists. Thousands of Communist Party members, who are under the direct orders of the Party, either acting openly or as concealed Communists, are holding down paid positions in the C. I. O. and its affiliated organizations. Stachel's department takes good care of that. Besides, the Party's support of the New Deal has made it possible for many Party members to parade around as non-Communists, and others without joining to work under the direction of the Party, with the result that the Party's interests are being served in many important quarters and even in government circles. A weird system of hypocrisy and deceit has been built up to maintain this structure, so that it can effectively accomplish things, which the Party openly as the Communist Party could never do. This weird system, this chameleon superstructure, is operated by crafty Stachel so stealthily that it hoodwinks many well-wishing innocent people, motivated by idealism and lofty sentiments." Ibid. P. 331. "In 1932, after Roosevelt was elected and came out with his 114

New Deal program, Browder attacked Roosevelt as a potential Fascist and the New Deal as Fascist. Then he went to Moscow, saw the light, and returned a staunch champion of President Roosevelt and the New Deal." Ibid., P. 332. "Yet with all this investment of money and energy, of political conniving and propaganda, we made no appreciable inroads into the body of American public opinion until about the advent of the New Deal administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Why that was so, is another question. It may be mere coincidence. But such is the fact." Ibid., P. 470. Earlier in these pages we discussed the effects of the brief Communist experiment in Hungary under Bela Kuhn, Joseph Pogany (Pepper) and other Jews. On a small scale, what happened there was a duplicate of what has been happening in Soviet Russia ever since 1917: wholesale murder, starvation and unbelievable cruelty. No Oriental despot ever wreaked a harsher revenge upon his enemies than these Jewish revolutionaries brought to a virtually helpless people. One of these murderers, Pepper-Pogany — and undoubtedly others of those who managed to escape the wrath of Admiral Horthy and the loyal Hungarians—is still in the United States and under various names, active in the Communist movement. Radical Jew Alsberg vilifies George Washington Parke Custis. The Federal Writers Project of the W . P . A . , a pet of Roosevelt, directed by Henry G. Alsberg, a radical fellow-traveler and New York Jew, in its costly and beautifully illustrated guide book of the City of Washington, prepared under the editorial direction of Joseph Gaer, another New York radical Jew, and paid for with taxpayers' money, went out of its way to make an outrageous attack on George Washington Parke Custis, step-grandson of George Washington and father-in-law of General Robert E. Lee, and asserted that he was the father of a Negress, Maria Syphax. Alsberg gave as his authority for the statement E. Delorus Preston, Jr., a Negro student and writer of history. Alsberg stated that the Syphax family of Negroes were descended from a distinguished line of the plantation aristocracy of the South. Russian-Pole Anarchist assassinates President McKinley. Leon Czolgosz, a Russian-Pole Anarchist, coldly and brutally assassinated President McKinley at Buffalo. He was a follower of 115

Red Emma Goldman, Russian Polish Jewish anarchist, and of Alexander Berkman, a Russian Jewish assassin, and had been influenced by her writings and speeches and belonged to the same anarchistic union of assassins. Henry A. Wallace, now Roosevelt's running mate, then his Secretary of Agriculture, in his original articles for his volume, "Statesmanship and Religion", stated: "The first thing that stands out in the lives of the reformers of the Sixteenth Century (probably Calvin, Luther and Knox) was their tremendous earnestness. The only people of this century who seem to have a comparable earnestness are such men as Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler." O'Donnell in Times-Herald, Oct. 7, 1940. In an article by an eminent and patriotic Washington lawyer. M r . George E. Sullivan, Congressional Record September 24, 1940, it is stated: "Less than a century after such unsuccessful attempt of Clinton Roosevelt, another Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, is found to be extensively and persistently engaged in imposing upon you a creeping collectivism, as an experiment to create a supposedly better social order for your general welfare. His so-called New Deal is far from new, and bears a strong resemblance to Marxian sabotage, some features of which so recently, under Blum, undermined France, and made her an easy victim of Hitler. Roosevelt's persistent opposition to balancing the Budget is steadily producing ultimate bankruptcy, in strange accord with the diabolical advice of Lenin and Stalin to cause 'practical bankruptcy' to make a victim nation 'fully ripe' for Communist take-over. (Foundations of Leninism, by Stalin, p. 95.) M r . Roosevelt has arrogantly belittled your Constitution as a product of 'horse-and-buggy days.' His flagrant contempt for the salutary warning of the Father of your Country, 'Let there be no change by usurpation,' is quite obvious. He has brazenly urged Members of the House of Representatives not to 'permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable' to block legislation sought by him (vol. 79, Congressional Record, p. 14363). He has created a veritable labyrinth of bureaucracies, and is constantly gathering to himself new powers. He has even boasted about the building up of 'new instruments of public power,' which in other hands could 'provide shackles for the liberties of the people.' "



JEWS AND THE CONSTITUTION, AND COURTS Shylock—"A Daniel come to Judgment! Yea, a Daniel." Merchant of Venice. "Suavity toward the Jews — although you have lived among them it is evident that you little understand those enemies of the human race—Haughty and at the same time base, combining an invincible obstinacy with a spirit despicably mean, they weary alike your love and your hatred." Anatole France. Strangely, perhaps, the dominance of the Jew over American law and its interpretation is a relatively recent phenomenon. T w o names—Brandeis and Frankfurter—have put their stamp upon it. We need make no more than passing reference to the liking of the Jew for the practice of law, and only a word to the fact that they are mostly brilliantly identified with the perversion of it. In case you doubt this, read the list of those disbarred—in New York City, for example—for violation of the legal code. In both of the recent criminal scandals relating to McKesson and Robbins and Judge Manton only the Christians were punished. The rich Jews escaped punishment in New York City, as is usual. The extra-legal, un-American activities of M r . Justice Brandeis, who declares that as a Jew he has a Distinct Nationality, for example, have already been touched upon. The fact that, to quote Spring-Rice, "He (Brandeis) is said to have much influence with the President" is not important save in light of the nature of that influence. We have already seen that he is credited—by the Jews themselves and boastfully—with bringing us into the World War. Roosevelt, in his second court packing plan, appointed Felix Frankfurter a Justice of the Supreme Court, where his influences are pervasive. He presumptuously overshadows the Chief Justice and apparently exerts unfortunate influence upon four to six of the other Justices. At last the radical theories of Roosevelt, House. Brandeis and Frankfurter are now declared the law in government, economics and sociology. "Brainy—and plus that—nervy. That is the two-word picture of Felix Frankfurter, Byrne Professor of Administrative L a w at Harvard L a w School, the man behind the President of the United States." American Magazine, March, 1934. 117

Frankfurter has expressly declared that the due process clause which follows Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution "ought to go". "* * * We have had fifty years of experiment with the Fourteenth Amendment, and the centralizing authority lodged with the Supreme Court over the domestic affairs of forty-eight widely different states is an authority which it simply cannot discharge with safety either to itself or to the states. The due process clauses ought to go. It is highly significant that not a single constitution framed for English speaking countries since the Fourteenth Amendment has em bodied its provisions. A n d one would indeed be lacking in a sense of humor to suggest that life, liberty, or property is not amply protected in Canada, Australia, and South Africa." Law and Politics of Felix Frankfurter, P. 16. The 14th Amendment provides: " N o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Ruling Case Law, V o l . 6, states about the "due process clause" which Frankfurter says "ought to go": "The principle that no person should be deprived of life, liberty or property except by due process of Law did not originate in the American system of constitutional law, but was contained in Magna Charta as a part of ancient English liberties." Sec. 434 "As has already been seen the principle of due process of law had its origin in England as a protection to individuals from arbitrary action on the part of the crown. It has been said that in this country the requirement is intended to have a similar effect against legislative power, that is, to secure the citizen against any arbitrary deprivation of his rights, whether relating to his life, his liberty, or his property. It is a limitation upon arbitrary power, and is a guaranty against arbitrary legislation. The primary purpose of the guaranty was the security of the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government, unrestrained by the established principles of private rights and distributive justice." Ibid. Sec. 438. When Frankfurter declared that the due process clause of the Constitution should go, he was thus demanding that the states have the arbitrary right to deprive the citizen of his "life, liberty and property" 118

without the protection of the Federal Courts. This means that the Jew controlled State of New York, among other states, shall have the arbitrary right to deprive its citizens of life, liberty and property, without interference from the Courts of the Federal Government. So speaks a non-combatant of Marxian sabotage. JOHN MARSHALL John Marshall, native, patriot, honored soldier, friend of Washington, representative of his country at home and abroad, Secretary of State and Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, in McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, defending the American form of government and the Constitution, held: "The power to tax involves the power to destroy." Felix Frankfurter, Austrian-born Jew, a defender of Communistic murderers, immediately after his appointment as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, in derision of Chief Justice Marshall and his warning against the destructive power of taxation, contemptuously called it "an unfortunate remark", "a flourish of rhetoric", "a doctrinaire application of generalities", "a seductive cliche' ", and "a pernicious abstraction". See Graves vs. New York, 306 U. S. 466, 488-9. Frankfurter seems to have a penchant for attacking those most truly American. Not satisfied with sneering at Chief Justice Marshall, he adds to the category of his scorn Chief Justice Taft, President Coolidge, Hon. John W. Davis, Democratic nominee for President—all native Americans whose forefathers fought in the Revolutionary War and served their country in times of peril with distinction and honor. "* * * The door to the Holy of Holies has been opened. Others w i l l follow where M r . Taft's profanation leads." Law and Politics, of Frankfurter, P. 40. "* * * M r . Taft, even before he was one of its members, had been rather obsessed by the notion that the Supreme Court is a sacred priesthood immune from profane criticism." Ibid. P. 41. "Chief Justice Taft deals with abstractions and not with the work-a-day world, its men and its struggles. To him, also, words are things and not the symbols of things. The jejune logomachy of his judicial process is thus exposed by M r . Justice Holmes." Ibid. P. 46. Not the least significant of Frankfurter's practices is the old habit of lauding Jewish Judges and Jewish concepts of law and mocking 119

American jurists and jurisprudence. In the case of Graves vs. U. S., 306 U. S. 466, to accomplish a reversal of a long current of decisions, Frankfurter relied upon opinions of judges from Australia and Canada, and stated: "In this Court dissents have gradually become majority opinions." (He was referring to the dissents of M r . Justice Brandeis and M r . Justice Holmes.) Patriotic Americans are invited to read Brandeis' and Holmes' dissents in Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, and Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S., 652, in which these dissenting Judges defended, as supposed civil liberties, violations of criminal laws by Communist, New York City, Jews seeking, in the Abrams case, sabotage of our national defense in time of war, and in the Gitlow case, overthrow of our government by force and violence in time of peace. Some of the criminal articles were printed in Yiddish, and practically all of the criminal Jews involved were born in Russia. M r . Frankfurter seems to have been ever on the alert to add his condemnation to whatever Justice Brandeis condemned, and employed such extravagant language as: "Against such an attitude, Mr. Justice Brandeis raised his magistral voice. It is not hazardous prophecy to believe that Mr. Justice Brandeis's opinion concurred in by M r . Justice Stone (Mr. Justice Cardozo taking no part in the decision) merely anticipates history, even the history of future opinions of the Court." Law and Politics of Felix Frankfurter, P. 58. M r . Justice Frankfurter is never laggard in singing the praise of his fellow-Jew, "Brandeis," whom he terms "the master of fact as the basis of social justice." Ibid. P. 31. Of the Jew Cardozo, Frankfurter, the Jew, says: "* * * The permanent influence of this great judge was achieved only partially by his own writings, for the current of his culture permeated in ways more subtle than even his opinions can express. Perhaps his qualities are best defined by saying that Cardozo completely satisfied the requirements of a judge wholly adequate for the Supreme Bench." Ibid. P. 102. In a recent article by Secretary of the Interior Ickes, published in the Saturday Evening Post, he charges that Secretary of the Interior Ballinger was the victim of a "despicable conspiracy". Justice Brandeis, then Attorney Brandeis, Ickes charges, was the attorney for one of the conspirators, and for the weekly magazine which was used by the conspirators for propaganda purposes. Ickes charges 120

that Brandeis' employment was obtained through the agency of the Hon. Henry L. Stimson, one time Republican Secretary of State and now an ardent interventionist, war monger and ally of Franklin Roosevelt. Ickes charges that Brandeis prepared a "flimsy" accusation, that "there was nothing to which the break-Ballinger cabal would not stoop" and that the "astute" Brandeis built an enormous mountain out of a mole hill, until Brandeis' assaults convinced the people that the President of the United States (Taft) and his Attorney General "were trying to cover up". The power and influence of M r . Justice Frankfurter, an Austrianborn Jew, date from Woodrow Wilson's administration. He became assistant to the Secretary of War, Secretary and Counsel to the President's Mediation Commission, assistant to the Secretary of Labor, Chairman of the War Labors Policy Board and representative of the Zionist cause at the Peace Conference. (The Zionists brought America into the World War.) While this recent-alien was being thus honored, other Americans, in the uniform of their country, but who possessed names, faintly German, were being imprisoned on the suspicion of being pro-German. According to Moley, Roosevelt's fidus Achates until the summer of 1936, Frankfurter, Corcoran and Cohen had persistently assured the President that it was not necessary for him to amend the Constitution in order to get control of the courts. Their theory was that the trouble was with the court and not with the Constitution, and if control could be obtained over the personnel of the court, the President could have his way in determining what the Constitution means and what is the law of the land. "The methods they advocated could not have been better calculated to lead Roosevelt to the proposal of February 5, 1937, viz.: Court packing." The Judiciary Committee of the Senate, a majority of whom were Democrats, on June 14, 1937, issued a magnificent report that ranks as one of the major State papers in the history of the country. This report stated: "We recommend the rejection of this bill as needless, futile and utterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle * * *". "It would subjugate the courts to the will of Congress and the President and thereby destroy the independence of the judiciary, the only certain shield of individual rights. "It contains the germ of a system of centralized administration * * *". "It points the way to the evasion of the Constitution." "* * * a proposal that violates every sacred tradition of American democracy." 121

"Its ultimate operation would be to make this government one of men rather than one of law, * * *". "It is a measure which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America." In the early days of his career, Frankfurter, always active on the side of the radicals and aliens, was bluntly charged by President Theodore Roosevelt as one with the Russian radicals "engaged in excusing men precisely like the Bolsheviki in Russia, who are murderers and the encouragers of murder, who are traitors to democracy and to civilization, as well as to the United States * * *". Frankfurter again plumped into the limelight by gratuitously injecting himself into the case of two Communist murderers, Sacco and Vanzetti, of Braintree fame, with the result that Dean John H. Wigmore, accepted authority on Evidence, writing in the Boston Transcript of April 25, 1927, said that Frankfurter "made errors and misstatements which if discovered in a brief of counsel filed in the case would qualify him for proceedings of disbarment." Wigmore's words were strong: " N o w all this palaver," he says, "seeking to make the reader believe that the judge and the prosecutor thrust the defendant's Reddism into the case, and then illegally and unfairly exploited it—all this palaver is a consummate misrepresentation * * * These facts are so demonstrative of the cruelty and libelous falsity of the whole tenor of the plausible pundit's article." When the Governor of Massachusetts nominated Frankfurter for a vacancy on the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, he stated that the "plausible pundit" was highly recommended by Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis D. Brandeis and Benjamin Cardozo. Despite his unusual influence upon several national and many local administrations, Frankfurter has never held public office by election. At one time or another in his American career, Frankfurter has belonged to a number of Left Wing organizations or to groups strongly sympathetic to radicalism. He was a member of the Advisory Committee of the socialist Worker's Educational Bureau and the Labor Education League under James A. Maurer, a known radical; the American Civil Liberties Union, which only purged its predominantly Communist executive board of its Red members when Stalin joined Hitler; the National Popular Government League, the creation of Louis F. Post, the millionaire radical. Frank A. Goodwin, an executive of the State of Massachusetts says of him in the 122

Sacco-Vanzetti case: "The leader of the movement to set these two murderers free is Felix Frankfurter." Deputy District Attorney Joseph W. Keith of Boston said: "I then believed and still believe that Frankfurter and men of his type are a menace to the country and to American institutions." In the Passaic textile strike in 1926, Frankfurter exhorted the strikers at a mass-meeting to remain on strike until their demands were met and he represented the United Front Committee (familiar phrase to those who know the Communist movement) in fighting a subsequent injunction. The "handbook" used by the strikers in this instance was Frankfurter's The Labor Injunction. In Reds in America, published in 1924, R. M. Whitney says: "A certain group of lawyers, not all the same personnel, but invariably with many of the same individuals, seems always to be seeking ways to embarrass the Government and interfere with its functioning when it attacks radicalism in any of its forms. These lawyers do not seem to care as to the merits of their case, as was shown when they brought charges of illegal practice against the Department of Justice, charges which were quickly shown to be utterly without foundation, a fact which the veriest tyro would have known upon cursory examination of the 'evidence' they presented. The make-up of this particular group of lawyers * * * is interesting * * *. The self-appointed committee, which signed the charges against the Department of Justice, including Felix Frankfurter, Ernst Freund and Frank P. Walsh * * * Walsh is the lawyer who, on his return from Moscow was reported in Communist circles to have been retained to defend the Bridgman conspirators." Frankfurter's dislike for the capitalist system is subtly conveyed in his writings and speeches. Speaking before the "pinko" New School for Social Research on February 2, 1933, as reported in the New York Herald-Tribune, he says, in part:"A good part of our past is dead. To hope for its revival is tragic illusion. New circumstances condition the nation's wealth-making; how they are met w i l l determine the national welfare. The road to yesterday's prosperity is largely barred." This is an old familiar strain — the things that have gone before are useless and something new must be done. That he proposes that this way shall not be the familiar American way, is obvious: "The way out lies in bold and laborious grappling with the basic forces of our economic leadership * * *. Moreover, the function of political leadership is to lead, and not to allow 123

action to be distracted because generalized public opinion is confused and distracted." Which is only another way of saying that public opinion should be overlooked because its judgments are neither wise, speedy nor universal. The Herald Tribune of September 25, 1933, indicates in a news story that Frankfurter was a force in the new Roosevelt administration: "Professor Felix Frankfurter, Harvard liberal, and regarded as one of the unofficial advisors of President Roosevelt, sailed for Europe today * * *. "Ostensibly Professor Frankfurter will be an exchange professor at Oxford University, but advices from Washington indicate that he also is on an unofficial Presidential mission, assisting the Chief Executive in keeping abreast of affairs, particularly financial matters all over the world." "More and more the influence of Prof. Frankfurter of Harvard is noted in selecting brilliant young liberals for key positions as legal advisors. By intellectual standards Frankfurter and Justice Brandeis are almost synonymous. It is a fact, therefore, that a respected Supreme Court Justice (Brandeis) is influential within the executive branch of government under this administration." Kiplinger's Washington News Letter, Dec. 2. 1933. Paul Mallon names, among others of these "Anthony Advocates". Ben Cohen, Max Lowenthal. Jerome Frank and Nathan Margold. He says: "There are a dozen or so others hidden in the N. R. A . . C. W. A. and elsewhere. They have several common meeting places at the homes of friends and at a house where a few of them are living together. If they set out to repeal the law of gravity legally, they could probably do it." The Jewish publishing house of Simon & Schuster in a boastful moment, issued a book called The New Dealers in 1934. On page 317, et. seq., it says of Frankfurter: "Unlike that other great Jew, Bernard M. Baruch, who, after making a fortune in speculation, has mastered the text-book maxims of old-line economics and aspires to be known as the perpetual advisor to all Presidents of all parties at all times and upon all subjects, Frankfurter usually has something to say which is worth hearing. "Felix more than any other one person is the legal master-mind of the New Deal, altho he is in large part only the transmitter of the apostolic succession of Louis D. Brandeis. Like Brandeis, he cannot watch the game without putting his hands on the 124

board * * *. His intimacy with Roosevelt dates back to the Wilson Administration when Frankfurter's work on the War Labor Policies Board brought him in frequent contact with the Navy. Both being of the type 'who keep in touch' they have continued their association ever since * * * Franklin frequently invited Felix to come to Albany for a general gabble and incidental diagnosis of that ever-interesting patient known as the state of the nation. A n d Felix urged in letters to his friends and in conversation Roosevelt's nomination for the Presidency, being one of the few liberal intellectuals who saw that Roosevelt was their man. * * * "When Wallace and Tugwell planned their new farm administration, they asked Frankfurter to recommend a Solicitor for the Department of Agriculture. He suggested Jerome N. Frank, a liberal Jewish lawyer of Chicago. "When the first draft of the Securities Bill prepared by Huston Thompson was practically wrecked, Moley sent for Frankfurter to rewrite it. Felix brought down Professor Landis, a younger protege named Ben Cohen, and borrowed still another of his proteges, Thomas G. Corcoran * * * When the Tennessee Valley Authority was organized and needed a smart lawyer, Frankfurter produced David Lilienthal, whom he had been farming out in Wisconsin in training for just such a job. Lilienthal knew public utilities and the laws governing them from right to left. For Secretary Ickes, Frankfurter produced Nathan R. Margold; for Miss Perkins * * * Charles E. Wyzanski, Jr.; and Secretary Hull found waiting for him in the State Department another Frankfurter economic protege in the shape of Herbert Feis. "Thus there are Frankfurter men established in key posts thruout the Administration. Most of them are young and brilliant heirs to the tradition of Holmes, Brandeis and Cardozo, transmitted through the Harvard Law School under Professor Felix Frankfurter. * * "Most of the Frankfurter products brought their own rolls and mustard along to Washington, until there are now between seventy-five to a hundred men in the Administration who studied under Frankfurter * * *. Some Departments and emergency organizations won't accept any lawyer who is not on the Frankfurter white list. The fact that so many liberal lawyers are Jews has succeeded in giving an accidentally Semitic cast * * * to the legal front of the New Deal * * Roosevelt has discovered what the English have known since the day of Disraeli, that a Jew is a bad servant and a bad master, but a superb partner in any bold enterprise." "So Frankfurter's part in the New Deal was not confined to the provision of its legal personnel. He was an active though detached member of the Brain Trust * * * and he advised 125

the Administration on its main strategy with regard to the Supreme Court. He urged against allowing any of the revolutionary legislation to come before the Court until Congress had reaffirmed its intent by re-enacting the emergency measures. This strategy would also allow the Grim Reaper to do his stuff on some of the conservative dodos on the bench. So Frankfurter advised the Administration to 'go slow' and that was his parting word to almost every one of his lieutenants in each of the experimental wings of the Roosevelt Revolution." The book, from which we take the above quotations, was published by a Jewish publishing house—a "bold enterprise" indeed. The book was reviewed in the American Jewish Weekly, with a comment, "Men and not principles make a government." Fortune, A p r i l , 1934, says of Frankfurter: "The characteristic phenomenon of the New Washington is the dollar-a-day boy, the youngster recently out of Harvard or Yale or Columbia Law School who serves equally gladly the New Deal for the remuneration accepted by the Baruchs and Swopes (during the World W a r ) . The War was a crisis for the entire national economy. The New Deal is a crisis for the hopes of a younger generation." "The greater number of these youngsters — their ages run from twenty-five to thirty-five with the majority around thirty — are selections, directly or indirectly, of Felix Frankfurter, intimate advisor of the President, Professor of Law, etc., etc., and one of the great teachers of our time — a man whose influence over his students does not end with the awarding of an L L . B . degree. They therefore share Mr. Frankfurter's point of view." Paul Mallon, writing in the Chicago Daily News, June 22, 1933, says: "The spare figure of Prof. Felix Frankfurter, liberal lawyereconomist, darted in and out of the White House unnoticed on several occasions, just before President Roosevelt sent his wealth-sharing tax proposals to Congress. This same Harvard counselor paid several visits earlier to Hyde Park while the President was there, altho none noted his presence except the sparrows in the trees." At this point we refer you to Page 89 of this book where you will please again note M r . Belloc's words on "the habit of secrecy". We quote now from Kiplinger writing in Nation's Business, August, 1935: "Frankfurter, * * * is now a major influence with the President * * *. He has no Government position, and he seldom 126

appears in the flesh in Washington. When he visits there, he visits with Justice Brandeis, and then he goes around to visit with the President. He carries to the Presidential flower the pollen of Brandeis' social and economic philosophy * * * Taxation of Bigness in Business is a Frankfurter idea." Roosevelt told Congress — Message of January 4, 1935, — "We have undertaken a new order of things." "The foreword to his program for the so-called 'new order of things' was written by another radical English professor — Harold J. Laski (Jew) who praises Brogan as highly as Brogan praises the radical professor at Harvard * * Felix Frankfurter * * whom Hugh S. Johnson has declared in the Saturday Evening Post to be 'the most influential single individual in the United States.' " Chicago American, Nov. 2, 1935. Pearson and Allen, in the Times-Herald of August 12, 1940, in setting forth the efforts made by the Administration to prevent Col. Lindbergh from speaking to the American people against war over the radio, stated that Lindbergh was close to Col. Truman Smith of the U. S. Army Intelligence. Pearson and Allen then said: "At any rate, reports of Smith's collaboration with Lindbergh, brought to Roosevelt by Justice Felix Frankfurter, caused the President to demand his court-martial. General Marshall, however, persuaded him that this would cause bad public reaction, and instead sent Colonel Smith south to the maneuvers." A n d so we see that even after the Austrian-born Jew Frankfurter became a Justice of our Supreme Court, he was plotting with Roosevelt to degrade and punish a patriotic American Army officer, who did not want to save World Jewry, at the expense of his own country. Comment on the situation is unnecessary. The little AustrianJew who is today the "most influential single individual in the United States" — using his influence on behalf of avowedly alien principles and alien proposals, calling for a radical change in the form of the American Government, overthrowing the precedents of Marshall etc., and defending his viewpoint by citing conditions and legislation in foreign lands is an unwholesome spectacle. The Harvard, Yale and Columbia Law Schools, the New York City Bar, Roosevelt and the Jewish judges and lawyers are largely responsible for the monstrous substitution of absolute, administrative bureaucracies, operating under the continental European system for the true and tried English and American rules and principles of adjective law. 127

JEWISH L A W — T H E T A L M U D The following extracts are taken from 1935 edition of The Talmud, published by the Soncino Press, London, — under the editorship of Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, with a Foreword by the Very Rev. The Chief Rabbi Dr. J. H. Hertz. The edition is stamped " P R I N T ED IN THE NETHERLANDS." The Library of Congress has one set deposited May 6, 1935, bearing official Library No. 439739, and catalogued BM 500. E6. In the Foreword, it is stated: "Only one edition of the Talmud has escaped defacement at the hands of the censors, having been printed in Holland. It "forms a world of its own that must be judged according to its own laws." V o l . I contains the following passages: "Where a suit arises between an Israelite and a heathen, if you can justify the former according to the laws of Israel, justify him and say: 'This is our law'; so also if you can justify him by the laws of the heathens justify him and say (to the other party): 'This is your law'; but if this can not be done, we use subterfuges to circumvent him." (p. 664, taken from Baba Kamma 113a). " A n d with all lost things of thy brother, it is to your brother that you make restoration but you need not make restoration to a heathen." (p. 666, taken from Baba Kamma 113b). V o l . III contains the following: "The property of a heathen is on the same footing as desert land: whoever first occupies it acquires ownership." (p. 222, taken from Baba Bathra 54b). V o l . V contains the following: "Judaism has both a national and a universal outlook in life. In the former sense it is particularistic, setting up a people distinct and separate from others by its peculiar religious law." (Footnote on p. 382). "For murder, whether of a Cuthean by a Cuthean, or of an Israelite by a Cuthean, punishment is incurred; but of a Cuthean by an Israelite, there is no death penalty." (p. 388, taken from Sanhedrin 57a.) "It applies to the withholding of a labourer's wage. One Cuthean from another, or a Cuthean from an Israelite is forbidden, but an Israelite from a Cuthean is permitted." (p. 388, taken from Sanhedrin 57a, with footnote explana128

tion that "Cuthean" is a substitute "for the original goy (heathen)".) "He who smites an Israelite on the jaw, is as though he had thus assaulted the Divine Presence; for it is written. One who smiteth man (i. e. an Israelite) attacketh the Holy One." (p. 398, taken from Sanhedrin 58b). In the eyes of World Jewry, anyone but a Jew, is a heathen, a goy, or a cuthean,—all terms of contempt. Many passages in this recently authorized edition of the Talmud are so vile and obscene that to print them would be a violation of criminal law. The well known Jewish author, Josef Kastein, states (in History and Destiny of the Jews, p. 211) that "the laws of the Talmud proved exceedingly efficacious in binding the Jewish people together", and that the Talmud was "carried with them everywhere" and "became their home". This is corroborated by the outstanding World Jewry organization B'Nai B'rith, in its recent Fireside Discussion Group pamphlet No. V I I , which refers to the "self-governing Talmudic law" for the "world community". The members of such world community, controlled by such an anti-social and anti-American law, creating, in effect, a community of parasites to prey upon other peoples, are, obviously, incapable of assimilation with the laws and ideals of any civilized society founded upon the Christian doctrine of the universal brotherhood of man. Consequently, membership in organized World Jewry is patently incompatible with citizenship in the American Republic, and no Jew in America can honestly claim to be a loyal American citizen who recognizes such Talmudic law or has any connection whatever with such organized World Jewry. Nor should any Jew be treated as a loyal American citizen who defends, or fails to denounce, such outrageously anti-American Talmudic law, and certainly not be honored by the highest positions in the judicial, legislative and executive branches of the Government. The present attitude of the great body of Jews in America has been tersely stated by a leading American Rabbi, Solomon Schindler, in an article published in 1911 entitled "Breaking with Assimilation", in which he stated: "Fifty years ago we seemed near assimilation. Then a cloud came up out of the East and covered the world. It brought here to us two millions of people. Whilst they were different from us in appearance and habits, there were 129

ties of blood between us and they brought a new spirit amongst us. They surrounded us like an army." (Jewish Chronicle, April 28, 1911). Still more recently, another prominent American Rabbi, Julius T. Loeb, declared, in his autobiography published in "Who's Who in the Nation's Capital" (1930), his belief i n — "Jerusalem as head capital of a United States of the world." The magazine "The Torch of Israel," issue of July 1940 ( V o l . 25, No. 3), carries an astounding article headed: " T H E I D E N T I T Y OF T H E U N I T E D STATES AS M O D E R N ISRAEL." The article falsely describes George Washington, the Father of Our Country, as having Jewish blood, called "the Blood Royal of Israel" (p. 31), and our Nation's Capital as— "the great white city—'the city that lieth four square'— The New Jerusalem." P. 32. Apparently the stage is now set and the curtain arrogantly lifted for an American-Israel to supplement British-Israel in a plan for world domination. In an article published in the Montreal Daily Star on October 26, 1940, by the British-Israel-World Federation (Canada) Incorporated, with Headquarters in Toronto, it is stated: "BRITAIN IS ISRAEL"—"Every Prophecy concerning Israel finds its fulfillment in the British Race. * * * The British Empire as the British Commonwealth of Nations alone answers this Description. * * Britain still rules the waves and possesses Gibraltar, Malta, Aden, Singapore, etc., etc. * * BECAUSE BRITAIN IS ISRAEL it is essential that the leaders and people of the Empire become possessed of a clear vision regarding the origin and mission of our Race."


XI JEWS AND MORALS SHYLOCK That souls of animals infuse themselves Into the trunks of men: thy currish spirit Govern'd a wolf, who, hanged for human slaughter, Even from the gallows did his fell soul fleet, A n d , whilst thou lay'st in thy unhallow'd dam, Infus'd itself in thee: for thy desires Are wolfish, bloody, starv'd, and ravenous. M E R C H A N T OF V E N I C E Act IV—Scene 1. The criticism of outstanding Jewish leaders on the moral question, especially as it regards sex (and without venturing further into their known intimacy with the narcotic, liquor and vice traffic), trends from discussion of the wholesale seduction of Hollywood to their identity with the white slave trade. Some of these issues get into the law courts now and then and there is a promise of a "clean-up" but it usually ends there. The whole of the philosophy of organized World Jewry, and its approach to the moral question, might well be synthesized in the recent cause celebre involving one Bertrand Russell. Russell—Earl Russell, an English "Nobleman" who prefers democratically to ignore his title—was recently appointed by the Trustees of a New York U n i versity as an instructor. Unhappily for himself, Russell had expressed his views on morality rather too boldly for the "puritanical" minds of certain parents whose children were enrolled in that University and whose tax-monies support it. It so happened that a New Y o r k Jew, James Marshall, the son of Louis Marshall, who has figured in this discussion several times, was head of the Board of Higher Education in the city controlling the University in question. On March 30, 1940, Justice McGeehan—in response to a tax-payer's suit, stated in effect that the action of the Board had illegally established: "A chair of indecency, and, in doing so, had acted arbitrarily, capriciously and in direct violation of the public health, safety and morals of the people." Justice McGeehan quoted from various books written by M r . Russell, in which the English Lord stated: 131

"I think that all sex relations which do not involve children should be regarded as a purely private affair, and that if a man and woman choose to live together without having children, that should be no one's business but their own. I should not hold it desirable that either a man or woman should enter upon the serious business of marriage intended to lead to children without having had previous sexual experience." The Appellate Division of the New York Courts in upholding Justice McGeehan's decision relating to Earl Russell said through Presiding Justice Francis Martin: "People should not be appointed to the board of education who would designate persons who are unfit, or who have been convicted of a crime." Lord Russell speaks with authority. His first wife divorced him on the grounds of adultery, the details of which are aired in the English courts. On the subject of the morals of students, the distinguished Lord says:— "I am sure that university life would be better, both intellectually and morally, if most university students had temporary childless marriages. This would afford a solution of the sexual urge neither restless nor surreptitious, neither mercenary nor casual, and of such a nature that it need not take up time which ought to be given to work." The individual speaking, incidentally, is not an American citizen, a factor in the statute which his Jewish supporters ignore. But Lord Russell goes even further and injects himself vigorously in the question of perversion and degeneracy: "It is possible that homosexual relations (sodomy, etc.) with other boys would not be very harmful if they were tolerated, but even then there is danger lest they should interfere with the growth of normal sexual life later on." A great number of Jewish Rabbis, professors, lawyers, statesmen and financiers, abetted by some radical ministers, professors and lawyers of Christian descent, rushed into their press with fierce and gratuitous condemnation of the Court ruling. Leading the pack was the famous idol of World Jewry, Professor Albert Einstein, GermanJewish refugee, life member of the Institution for Advanced Study at Princeton, a member of several Communistic organizations and pundit on all questions of American politics and life. In a letter to Morris R. Cohen, a Russian-Jew and Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at City 132

College, New York, Professor Einstein assumed a lofty and superior attitude, in defense of Russell. He said, in part: "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices." New York Times, March 19, 1940. So to Einstein, Jewry's greatest living idol, those who oppose the appointment of teachers who advocate tolerance for homo-sexuality are mediocrities with hereditary prejudices. We have already seen how powerful are the "hereditary prejudices" of the Jew against Christian morals and religion. The amazing thing about Einstein's statement is not that he made it, but that he did not seem to reckon with the fact that it was mainly his co-members of World Jewry who rushed to Russell's defense, thus identifying themselves in the public mind with an already well founded judgment of its standards of morality. Such support as Russell found from then on came largely from leading Jewish sources. A typical one reads: "The writings of Bertrand Russell, British philosopher whose appointment to the faculty of the College of the City of New York was recently rescinded, were held up yesterday by Rabbi Louis I. Newman of Congregation Rodeph Sholom * * * 'as examples of ethical and spiritual wisdom.'" New York Herald Tribune, A p r i l 14, 1940. "Rabbi J. Howard Ralbag, at the Jewish Center of W i l liamsbridge, 2910 Barnes Avenue, the Bronx, said he thought that the 'mature, wholesome and inspiring' influence of Bertrand Russell, whose appointment as a professor at the C o l lege of the City of New York was revoked eight days ago, was 'beyond reproach.' " New York Times, April, 1940. In addition to Einstein, other leading Jews who rallied to Russell's defense were Miss Pearl Bernstein, executive officer of the appointive board, a group of thirty-six members of the radical American League of Writers, and the American Committee for the Protection of the Foreign Born, who urged the authorities to ignore the law as it concerned Earl Russell's citizenship. A number of Jewish publishers, including Bennett A. Cerf, Alfred A. Knopf, and W. B. Huebsch, of Viking Press, a strongly Left Wing outfit, said their piece in defense of Russell, as did John Haynes Holmes, a prominent radical minister, Dr. Henry Neuman of the Brooklyn Society for Ethical (?) Culture, Professor Alonzo Meyers of New York University, Rabbi Jonah B. Wise, Professor George 133

S. Counts, and Professor Horace M. Kallen of the radical School for Social Research, where Professor (now Justice) Frankfurter often spoke, and who has been identified with a number of radical movements. The Rev. A. J. Muste, an extreme Left Winger, added his praise of Russell, and Carl Binger of the Willard Straight Post of the American Legion, the only Legion post in the nation to consistently defend radicals and radical organizations, rose in his defense. A number of Jewish members of the Government injected themselves into the picture on the side of Russell. Among them were Nathan R. Margold, Solicitor of the Interior Department, George Bronz, legal advisor to the Bituminous Coal Consumers Council Division: Stanley Surrey of the Treasury Department; Felix S. Cohen of the Board of Appeals of the Interior Department and Samuel Frankel from the Department of Agriculture. Despite these sickening disclosures and the decisions of the New York courts, the noble Earl, Lord Bertrand Russell, is now lecturing to the select youths of "dear old Harvard", and he has been recently advertised to speak at a T o w n Hall meeting, in the National Capital, under the auspices of religious, social and civic leaders who should have known better. It was only a year or two before this that Leon Blum, the rich French-Jewish Socialist and Prime Minister was publicly embarrassed by the reminder that he had written a book Du Mariage containing certain references which even the least critical described as highly immoral. In this book, Blum not only advocated incest between brother and sister but recommended that girls throw off their 'virginity gayly and early.' After discussing this recommendation, Francis YeatsBrown says in his European Jungle, (p. 193): "From morning to night, * * the French citizen pays his tribute to the tribes of Israel. His coffee comes from the Cohens of Haifa; his bread has been handled by Louis-Dreyfus: when he listens to his radio he enriches the half-Jew, Louis Mercier; his newspapers are full of Jewish advertisements, especially of the patent medicines of Levi and V i d a l ; the Intransigeant is owned by L. L. Dreyfus, the Populaire by Lazarus Brothers, the Figaro by M. Cotnareanu, the Petit Parisien and Excelsior by M. Braun, and the Stock Exchange swarms with Levis, Lazards, Rothschilds, Cohens, Davids, Weils, Mayers, Sterns, Blochs, Baumanns, and their friends and relations." That sodomy was not sporadic in Sodom and Gomorrah, but a continuous characteristic of many Jews, is evidenced by the fact that Sodom is denounced thirty-nine times in the Old and New Testaments. 134

"Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom and we should have been like unto Gomorrah." Isaiah, C h . 1., v. 9. "Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city." Gospel according to St. Matthew, Ch. 10., v. 15. " A n d their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified." The Revelation of St. John the Divine. Ch. 11., v. 8. Jews control 90% of the production of liquor, and most of its distribution in metropolitan centers. In the Nation's Capital Jew M i l t o n S. Kronheim & Son, Inc. publishes a "Beverage Bulletin". An application was recently made for the transfer of a license for a liquor store to a residential neighborhood, which was protested by a number of churches and property owners. Before final action was made known by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, Kronheim's paper secured a "scoop", stating that the Board would grant the permit. If national prohibition should again return, the Jewish control of the liquor business with their insistence upon letting the bars down, violating regulations, increasing the number of saloons, locating them in proximity to homes and churches, and selling to minors and drunkards, can be held responsible. The Jewish control of race-track gambling, the numbers or policy rackets, and the slot machines, which feed on and cheat the very poor, is beyond question. In the field of pornographic literature and movies Jews, as anyone can easily ascertain, have almost a monopoly. During the past two decades in particular they have been extensively active in the United States in the writing and distribution of salacious books, and during the past five years at least a dozen such books have been subject to public controversy because of their indecency. A n investigation will show that modern perversion of art and music are largely the result of Jewish influence. The Jew Moving Picture industry has made many contributions to the undermining of morality in America through pictures and newsreels having such a tendency, and utilizing the system of blockbooking to compel their introduction to houses which would not voluntarily accept them. The industry also loses no opportunity to produce and distribute pictures and newsreels to get America to fight 135

and die for World Jewry, and the Christians pay for their intended slaughter. Jimmie Rossevelt's recent employment, at a fabulous salary, obviously suggests harmony on the part of his family with what is going on in the industry, which no member of his family has sought to correct. As reported by the Associated Press, the House Committee on Un-American Activities, has recently obtained a list of forty-two of the moving-picture industry's foremost figures—actors and actresses, writers, producers and directors, in connection with a showing that Hollywood's film colony has been a prime source of Communist party revenue and recruiting. Cruelty of the Jewish motion picture magnates to animals, particularly to horses used in moving pictures, has recently been disclosed, but we, Gentiles, should realize that the Jews are a law unto themselves and are permitted in the name of religion, to have their Rabbis, of course for compensation, superintend the killing of animals for food, according to methods which the Association to Prevent Cruelty to Animals is not permitted to prevent. Jewish perpetration of grossly immoral bolshevism is indicated by what our American Ambassador to Russia wrote in January 1918: "The bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and ninety per cent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country, but are internationalists, and they are trying to start a world-wide social revolution." Russia From the American Embassy, by David R. Francis, P. 214. It is further shown by what the Netherlands Minister to Russia wrote on September 6, 1918: "The danger is now so great that I feel it my duty to call the attention of the British and all other Governments to the fact that if an end is not put to Bolshevism in Russia at once the civilization of the whole world will be threatened." "I consider that the immediate suppression of Bolshevism is the greatest issue now before the world, not even excluding the war which is still raging, and unless, as above stated, Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world, as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things." Foreign Relations of the United States: 1918. Russia. (published by U. S. State Dept.), Vol. I, pp. 678-9. British White Paper "Russia No. 1, April 1919", p. 6, on "Bolshevism in Russia". 136

XII JEWS AND RELIGION "And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, "Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. " A n d if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you. "So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day." Gospel according to St. Matthew, Ch. 28, v12 to 15 It is properly the spirit of both the Protestant and Catholic churches in the United States to decry every suggestion of religious persecution and to promote the spirit of tolerance. The Jew — on behalf of his person, his rights before the law, his property and, above all his religion — demands all we can give of tolerance and respect. He insists upon them as his natural "right". He understands, perhaps better than we ourselves, the instinctive dislike of the AngloSaxon American for persecution for any cause, good or bad, and our respect for religious freedom. It is a pity that the Jew does not reciprocate. Whenever the question of the Jew and the Christian religion comes up, the Christian is reminded of the sweet virtues of tolerance. He is told that Jesus taught that he must "love his neighbor as himself". The Jew uses this argument with enthusiasm whenever World Jewry is attacked for its offenses against society. Is it not, then, time to question whether the Jew himself practices what he preaches? Does not the Jew, himself the originator of the Ghetto as a symbol of his exclusiveness, practice exclusion, indulge in hatred, contempt and arrogance? "The Western mind is incapable of thinking religiously." A Program for the Jews and Humanity, by Harry Waton. a Jew, p. 185. "The time will come when all Christians will become mature, they will all embrace Judaism, and they will all justify themselves by deeds. Then the Christians will become Jews." Ibid. p. 174. 137

" W i t h deep insight into history Jesus foresaw what would happen to the Christians, that they would waste the treasure with harlots, but in due time the Christians will come back to Jehovah, and Jehovah w i l l be glad to receive them." Ibid. p. 176. "The Jews have always been with Jehovah, and all that Jehovah has belongs to the Jews." Ibid. p. 177. "There never was a time when any Jew believed that Jehovah spoke to Moses or to the Prophets in any other sense than we believe today that God — that is, existence — reveals himself through the minds of a Spinoza, a Hegel, a Marx, an Einstein and the like." Ibid. p. 217. "His (God's) intention w i l l be realized through bloody struggles, wars and revolutions; the present social order will be destroyed together with all institutions that are bound up with the present social order. State capitalism and fascism will take the place of the present social order." Ibid. p. 225. "Christianity does not concern itself about the material world * * its sole concern is immortality * *; it does not concern itself about conduct, its sole concern is faith * *" Ibid. p. 118. Christianity, therefore, is unhistoric and unmoral." Ibid. p. 121. "I cannot help feeling that Communism, whatever its exponents may say, has recovered that essential core of a real belief in God, which organized Christianity has in our day largely lost." Ibid. p. 125. "* * * this regenerated and true Christianity must identify itself with Marxism and communism." Ibid. p. 124. "Only Judaism is a historic and moral religion; all other religions are neither historic nor moral." Ibid. p. 131. " * * * between the Catholics and the Communists there is a life and death struggle because the Catholics regard their idea of co-operation as being right, true and good, while the idea of co-operation of the Communists the Catholics regard as wrong, false and evil * * *." Ibid. p. 136. "The Communists are against religion, and they seek to destroy religion; yet, when we look deeper into the nature 138

of Communism, we see that it is essentially nothing else than a religion." Ibid. p. 138. "But the Communist soul is the soul of Judaism. Hence it follows that, just as in the Russian revolution the triumph of Communism was the triumph of Judaism, so also in the triumph of fascism w i l l triumph Judaism." Ibid. ps. 143-144. "The Jews should welcome this revolution in the Christian world, and the Jews should show an example. It is not an accident that Judaism gave birth to Marxism, and it is not an accident that the Jews readily took up Marxism: all this was in perfect accord with the progress of Judaism and the Jews." Ibid. p. 148. "The Jews cannot be a part of a real national unity." Ibid. p. 201. The above statements, read in the light of the power of the Jews whenever the question of national unity has been at stake — in the World War and again in the New Deal "emergencies" — are most enlightening. Waton's book, with all its amazing frankness and its disclosures of Jewish attitudes is, at least, an honest expression of Jewish thought by one who is no stranger to the subject. RABBI


The approach of the eminent, imported, English-Jew Rabbi and American College Professor, Lewis Browne, however, is somewhat more offensive. He appears to think it his duty to mock the Christian religion and especially Christian morals. An associate of Rabbi Stephen S. Wise and an imported teacher in a Western University, Browne recently made hilarious fun of American traditions and American morality, in an address on the T o w n Hall of the Air. In his book, Stranger than Fiction, Browne attacked Martin Luther in the following intemperate words: "He (Martin Luther) accused them (the Jews) of all those fictitious crimes which had made Europe such a hell for them. He, too, claimed that they poisoned the wells used by Christians, assassinated their Christian patients, and murdered Christian children to procure blood for the Passover. He called on the princes and rulers to persecute them mercilessly, and commanded the preachers to set the mobs on them. He declared that if the power were his, he would take all the leaders of the Jews and tear their tongues out by the roots." Ibid. p. 249. 139

"Those other lands were Christian, and they boiled with bigotry. The rulers themselves were more or less tolerant, for they depended upon Jews as their financiers. But the lower classes had no use for them, and butchered them whenever a righteous excuse could be found. " A n d righteous excuses were not wanting. If a plague broke out, of course the Jews had poisoned the wells. If a war was lost, of course the Jews had aided the enemy. If a boy mysteriously disappeared, of course the Jews had murdered him to procure blood for their Passover drink * * Ibid. p. 217. "The doctrines which the Jews had been spreading throughout the land for years could not but have helped to undermine the Church's power." Ibid. p. 222. Of the Catholics, he says: "So against both the Albigenses and the Jews this pope now directed all his fury. * * * The beautiful city of Beziers was razed to the ground. 'We spared neither dignity, nor sex nor age' writes the monk, Arnold, to his Holy Father, the pope. 'Nearly twenty thousand human beings perished by the sword. A n d after the massacre the town was plundered and burnt, and the revenge of God seemed to rage over it in a wonderful manner." Ibid. p. 224. " A n d finally it came Spain's turn. Persecution had occurred there on and off for over a century, and, after 1391, became almost incessant. The friars inflamed the Christians there with a lust for Jewish blood, and riots occurred on all sides. For the Jews it was simply a choice between baptism and death, and many of them submitted to baptism." "But almost always conversion on these terms was only outward and false. Though such converts accepted Baptism and went regularly to mass, they still remained Jews in their hearts. They were called Maranos, 'Accursed Ones,' and there were perhaps a hundred thousand of them. Often they possessed enormous wealth. Their daughters married into the noblest families, even into the blood royal, and their sons sometimes entered the Church and rose to the highest offices. It is said that even one of the popes was of this Marano stock." Ibid. p. 234 and 235. Some of Rabbi Professor Browne's choicest irony appears in his book, This Believing World. "Much of the old love for Isis, and especially for Cybele, the Great Mother of the Gods, was taken over into the church and translated into the worship of Mary, the Mother of Christ 140

* * * Similarly the worship of the old local deities was made a part of Christianity. The pagan gods and goddesses were discreetly made over into Christian saints, as is instanced by the case of St. Bridget. (Here Browne reproduces a sketch of St. Bridget which resembles an obscene cartoon far more than a Saint of the Church). Their 'relics' were sold far and wide in Christendom as fetishes guaranteed to ward off evil; and their ancient festive days were made part of the Christian calendar. The Roman Parilia in A p r i l became the Festival of St. George, and the pagan midsummer orgy in June was converted into the Festival of St. John; the holy day of Diana in August became the Festival of the Assumption of The V i r g i n : and the Celtic feast of the dead in November was changed into the Festival of A l l Souls. The twenty-fifth day of December, the winter solstice according to ancient reckoning—celebrated the birthday of the sun-god of Mithraism, was accepted as the birthday of Christ, and the spring rites in connection with the death and re-birth of the mystery gods were converted into the Easter rites of the Crucifixion and Resurrection." Ibid. ps. 294-295. As Rabbi Browne mocks the Catholic Church, he makes sport of the Protestant believers, in the same light-hearted vein. "Protestantism includes every type of religious thought and organization from 'high church' Anglicanism to high-principled Quakerism, from ecstatic Methodism to relentlessly intellectual Unitarianism. Only slowly, and with many pangs is even Protestantism shaking off the religion about Christ." Ibid. p. 300. On the subject of sex morals — a field in which he seems to be most competent and where he is a defender of the defender-of-perversion Bertrand Russell, Browne expatiates as follows: "Christianity has always looked on sex as in some way indecent and sinful; and for that reason most Christians cannot possibly associate a truly religious nature with an unsuppressed libido. But that is no more than a prejudice." Ibid. p. 326. In 1924, the noted Jewish writer and editor, Maurice Samuel, published a book entitled " Y o u Gentiles", declaring the impossibility of Jewish assimilation with any nation except a worldwide Jewish one. Many striking statements in the book illuminate such viewpoint, as follows: "I suspected from the first dawning of Jewish self-consciousness that Jew and gentile are two worlds, that between you gentiles and us Jews there lies an unbridgeable gulf." (P. 9.) "Wherever the Jew is found he is a problem, a source of 141

unhappiness to himself and to those around him. Ever since he has been scattered in your midst he has had to maintain a continuous struggle for the conservation of his identity." (p. 1 0 . ) "Years of observation and thought have given increasing strength to the belief that we Jews stand apart from you gentiles, that a primal duality breaks the humanity I know into two distinct parts; that this duality is a fundamental, and that all differences among you gentiles are trivialities compared with that which divides all of you from us." (p. 12.) " Y o u may even have Jews in your midst who did not learn their way of life from us, and did not inherit it from a Jewish forebear. We may have authentic gentiles in our midst: these single protests are of no account; they are extreme and irrelevant variations." (p. 2 1 . ) "I do not believe that this primal difference between gentile and Jew is reconcilable. You and we may come to an understanding, never to a reconciliation. There will be irritation between us as long as we are in intimate contact. For nature and constitution and vision divide us from all of you forever." (p. 23.) "You have your way of life, we ours. In your system of life we are essentially without 'honor'. In our system of life you are essentially without morality. In your system of life we must forever appear graceless; to us you must forever appear Godless." (p. 34.) "We belong to the One mastering God: you belong to the republic of playful gods." (p. 36.) "Our Jewishness is not a creed—it is ourself, our totality. "Indeed, it may be fairly said that the surest evidence of your lack of seriousness in religion is the fact that your religions are not national, that you are not compromised and dedicated, en masse, to the faith." (p. 73.) "In the heart of any pious Jew, God is a Jew. Is your God an Englishman or an American?" (p. 75.) "When Germany and England and America will long have lost their present identity or purpose, we shall still be strong in ours." (p. 111.) "We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers forever. Nothing that you will do will meet our needs and demands. We will forever destroy because we need a world of our own, a God-world, which it is not in your nature to build." (p. 155.) "One thing is quite certain: a Jew is never baptized for the purpose of becoming a Christian; his purpose is to become a gentile. Yet obviously you do not make a gentile of a Jew by baptizing him any more than you would make an Aryan of a negro by painting him with ocher." (p. 191.) "We cannot assimilate: it is so humiliating to us that 142

we become contemptible in submitting to the process: it is so exasperating to you that, even if we were willing to submit, it would avail us nothing." (p. 209.) "Perhaps nothing that you have ever feared from the economic tyranny of Socialism approaches the oppressive spiritual tyranny of your great democracies." (p. 213.) It is strange indeed that patriotic Americans are invariably charged by leaders of World Jewry with religious intolerance if the antiAmerican and anti-social activities of organized World Jewry be so much as mentioned. Yet, to its own members, organized World Jewry frankly admits that it is not a religion. The outstanding World Jewry organization, B ' N a i B'rith, recently proclaimed, in its Fireside Discussion Group pamphlet No. V I I , that organized World Jewry is "a world community", whose members are a "developed social type", that those who become professed Christians, or even confirmed atheists, are not excluded from membership, and that, consequently, it "cannot be described as being a religion". This condition is corroborated in the latest "Who's Who in American Jewry", where Litvinov (Finkelstein) and Trotsky (Braunstein) are both featured as specially illustrious members, notwithstanding (if not because of) their notorious records as atheists, communists and bloody revolutionists. This strange condition is made even stranger by the inclusion of a number of Christian Clergy (Protestant Ministers and Catholic Priests) in this latest Jewish Who's Who. Surely, Christianity (which represents the universal brotherhood of man in a very true sense) cannot be compounded with atheism, communism and bloody revolution for human subjugation and degradation. If present-day Judaism can be so compounded, it is manifest that it cannot be a religion in any legitimate sense of the term, and is far removed from the original Hebrew religion. Prof, Albert Einstein, German-Jewish refugee and Jewry's greatest living idol, according to an Associated Press Dispatch of September 11, 1940, in an address at the Conference of Science, Philosophy and Religion at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, urged religious teachers to "give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests." Prof. Einstein obviously intended the word "priests" to include ministers and preachers as well as priests. T h i s is another way of advocating the false doctrine of Marx (Mordecai), Lenin, and Trotsky (Bronstein) that religion is the opium of the people. 143


ROOSEVELT — NEW DEAL — COMMUNISTS — WORLD JEWRY "God give us men! A time like this demands Strong minds, stout hearts, true faith and ready hands; Men whom the lust of office does not k i l l ; Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy; Men who express opinions and a w i l l ; Men who have honor; men who will not lie; Men who can stand before a demagogue And damn his treacherous flatteries without winking; T a l l men, sun-crowned, who live above the fogs In public deeds and in private thinking. For while the rabble with their thumb-worn creeds. Their large professions and their little deeds, Mingle in selfish strife, lo! Freedom weeps!" Wrong rules the land and waiting Justice sleeps!" The New Deal, through its leader, President Roosevelt and the chorus of his satellites, warns us that we must prepare to "defend" ourselves against a foreign aggressor. A tremendous drive is under way to arm this nation on a scale never before in our history, with a Stalin-like regimentation of men, women, children and all industry. Leave out of the discussion for the moment, whether this danger is real or just another grossly exaggerated New Deal "emergency" and whether these billions are for defense or for Roosevelt aggression on foreign soil for World Jewry and the British Jewish Empire. Let us concern ourselves with the question: "What have Roosevelt and the New Dealers done, in terms of domestic policy, to prepare us for this hysterical effort?" Franklin Delano Roosevelt went into office in March, 1933, with a tremendous majority in both houses of Congress, the enthusiastic support of the entire country, the hopes of the people, and a platform which, he told the nominating convention, "I endorse 100%". Six months later that platform looked like Belgium when Hitler got through with it. Its authors would not have recognized its mangled remains. W i t h that event the tried, experienced and trusted Democratic Party — the Party the people thought they voted into office in November 1932 — died. Its historic functions were taken over by a crowd of invaders who no more resemble true Democrats than Felix Frankfurter resembles Thomas Jefferson. Bull-Moosers, 144

and professional social workers, reformers, revolutionaries, visionaries, radicals, communists, the "president-can-do-no-wrongers", political bankrupts and political prostitutes, a generous sprinkling of bemused Southern hereditary Democrats, the Hague machine, the Kelly-Nash machine, the Pendergast machine, some loose cogs from Tammany Hall, the Huey Long gang, the promoters of the millenium, the opportunists, the McCoy machine of Rhode Island, the Creel-McAdoo-Olsen machine of California, the pinks and Reds, the Youth Congress and the Communist Party, the professional nostrum dispensers, and a potent fringe of "Big Business" who are selling all sorts of machines to the New Deal bureaus, buying insurance from Jimmy Roosevelt and licking their chops in anticipation of war profits on munitions, etc. Add to this galaxy the habitual malingerers who always infest every nation, the Fifth Column of professional "foreigners", a swarm of termite Jews, the professional reliefers and indigents, the subsidized propagandists for the higher life, and a lunatic fringe of chronic malcontents. We have already mentioned some of the more prominent Jews who led this army of invaders of the Government. Among the better known or more influential of those not yet mentioned, were: Justice Sam Rosenmen of New York, credited by Raymond Moley in After Seven Years as one of Roosevelt's real intimates; Gerard Swope, rich industrialist, said by many to have been the father of the unconstitutional N R A , if not of much of the New Deal itself; his brother, Herbert Bayard Swope, race-track owner and publicity man; Gov. Herbert Lehman of New York, long ago described by Roosevelt as " M y good right arm"; Prof. Harold Laski of Oxford, British-Jew Radical and powerful in the New Deal background; David Lilienthal, head of T V A , one of the New Deal's socialistic experiments; J. David Stern, radical publisher, now on the Federal Reserve Board; Nathan Straus, advisor on housing; Jesse Strauss, first New Deal Ambassador to France; E. A. Goldenweiser, Russian-Jew director of the Federal Reserve Board; David Dubinsky, Polish-Jewish advisor on labor problems and C. I. O. leader; Lee Pressman, pro-Communist labor leader and now counsel for C. I. O: Abe Fortas, counsel to several New Deal bureaus: Charles Michaelson, former Republican publicity man, then smearer of Hoover administration, now in charge of publicity for Democratic National Committee; Lawrence Steinhardt, now Ambassador to Soviet Russia; Harry F. Guggenheim, heir to copper millions, advisor on aviation: Arthur Garfield Hays, advisor on civil liberties, and active in defense 145

of Scottsboro criminals and Communists; Mordecai Ezekial, most influential in agricultural matters under New Deal, now an official of Department of Agriculture; David Lasser, head of radical Worker's Alliance, who has strongly influenced New Deal in keeping relief rolls at highest possible peak; Adolph Sabath, Chairman of all-powerful House Rules Committee; Emanuel Celler, head of House Judiciary Committee; Sol Bloom, head of House Foreign Affairs Committee and traducer of George Washington; Samuel Dickstein, Chairman of the House Immigration Committee (whose efforts have hamstrung every patriotic attempt to restrict immigration in both quantity and quality); Henry Morgenthau, gentleman-farmer and Secretary of the Treasury; Herbert Feis, State Department counsel, whose voice, according to Moley, Alsop and Kintner, and other writers, has colored New Deal foreign policy; Prof. Albert Einstein, German-Jew and refugee "scientist", member of several pro-Communist organizations and often a White House guest; Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, radical propagandist who has coerced New Deal immigration policies and who once said that he was a "Jew first—an American after that"; Rose Schneidermann, called, in New York, "Red Rose", dominant in labor politics; M a x Zaritsky, left wing labor advisor; James P. Warburg, heir to Warburg millions, who. after giving early aid to New Deal, fled to shelter of Republican Party and is today back in New Deal favor; Isador Lubin, statistician of Department of Labor; Nathan Margold, counsel to several New Deal bureaus and accused by Indians of trying to "communize" them while he was counsel to Indian Bureau; the late William I. Sirovich, one-time head of House Patents Committee; the late Samuel Untermyer, credited by Moley and others with sponsoring much of early New Deal and its radical legislation; Leo Wolman, labor advisor and active in labor legislation; Sidney Hillman, C. I. O. leader, friend of Lenin and Trotsky, very recently anti-Communist, now one of Roosevelt's seven leaders of "preparedness' drive; Bennie Cohen, driving-force of New Deal "must" legislation and lobbyist for Roosevelt; Louis Kirstein, associate of late A. L. Filene, Jew Boston millionaire for whose company young John Roosevelt is now an executive; Charles Wyzanski, Jr., former Counsel to Madame Perkins' Department of Labor; Chas. Taussig, molasses millionaire, advisor to the New Deal in its early days and now the employer of Dr. Rex Tugwell, the young Brain Truster whose stay in Washington was devoted to "making America over". Among the hundreds of other Jews now in the Government or who flit in and out at intervals, and who have been employed at one time or another, are: Jacob Straus; Lucian Koch, 146

thrown out of his job as head of the notorious Commonwealth C o l lege of Mena, Arkansas, of which the wife and sister of M r . Justice Brandeis were financial supporters, and given a job in the New Deal; Jerome Frank, present head of the S.E.C.; Louis H. Bean of the Department of Agriculture: Abraham M. Fox, former research director of the Tariff Commission; Benedict Wolf of the National Labor Relations Board; William Leiserson of the National Labor Relations Board; David J. Saposs of the National Labor Relations Board; L. H. Seltzer, head economist of the Treasury; Edward Berman, Department of Labor; Jacob Perlman of the Department of Labor: Morris L. Jacobson, chief statistician of the Government Research Project; A. H. Meyers, New England division of the National Labor Relations Board; Jack Levin, assistant general manager of the Rural Electrification A u thority; Harold Loeb, economic consultant for the N . R . P . : William Seagle, attorney for the Petroleum Labor Policy Board: Herman A. Gray, member policy committee of the National Housing Conference; Alexander Sachs of Lehman Bros., early consultant of the New Deal, as was Paul Mazur, also of Lehman Bros. The list is as long, if not longer, today than it was in 1933. To name them all would claim a substantial part of the New York and Washington City Directories and most of the B'nai Brith. Like Hitler on the Western Front, swarms of Jews have consolidated their positions in the New Deal and are taking over Americans to die for World Jewry. Under the influence of these Jews and some "liberal" Gentile Fronts, the New Deal proceeded to make America over. One of their first acts was to debase our currency by reducing the value of the dollar to 59c; then to repudiate our obligations, domestic and international, by going off the gold standard. In an alleged attempt to raise agricultural prices, great fields of grain were plowed under, and millions of pigs and cattle were destroyed. The relief rolls were padded by the addition of thousands of persons whose jobs or relief checks depended upon their voting for the New Deal. By crying "Emergency", the President took away from Congress its Constitutional duty to write all legislation, and shoved down the throats of the crying representatives of the people, scores of bills written by the sly and facile pens of the "Happy Hot-Dogs" of Felix Frankfurter. Hundreds of illegally appointed publicity men were encouraged to belabor the brains and ability of true Americans and assault the ideas and ideals of the sober, hard-working middle classes, while the 147

President himself took the lead in mocking the "economic royalists" and 'princes of privilege". Billions of dollars, today needed for a defense program, were squandered or boondoggling. Just a few samples of the many follow: Thousands of dollars were spent for a community service campaign in Tempe, Arizona; to drain a piggery in Massachusetts, and to measure the area and cubic contents of buildings in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Uncle Sam hired a fan-dancer to entertain the C . C . C . in M i n nesota, and $19,000 was spent in Memphis to buy a dog-pound. A Guide Book to the United States — in one of which George Washington Parke Custis was vilely slandered by a Jew author on "information" furnished by a negro research "expert" — cost you and me $2,689,000, or one dollar per word. Johnston City, Illinois, asked for money to erect a flood control project but was refused and thousands of dollars were given to teach its unemployed how to play checkers, and to teach dancing, bridge and pinochle. More thousands was the cost to the W . P . A . to relocate a brook at Winchester, Mass. It cost us several thousand more to take a census of the trees in Harrisburg, Pa. We spent still more thousands to build a waterhole on a foxfarm in Everett, Mass. and to blow away an overhanging rock at Buncombe, Wisconsin. A n d while this was going on, our President says he knew, that we were facing the greatest crisis of our existence in which we would, as we are now told, need uncounted billions for defense! One of the President's favorite subjects for condemnation has been the "unscrupulous money-changers". Let us quote from the Seattle Business-Chronicle, issue of February 2, 1936: "In view of M r . Roosevelt's * * scolding of 'the moneychangers' — and his own operations as a money-changer in the boom years before the collapse of 1929, Spokane investors who bought $300,000 of his Camco Stock w i l l be interested in the recent editorial in the Chicago Tribune: 'He talks of "unscrupulous money-changers" and forgets that he ran a neat little pool in German marks, when the exchange rates were running wild.' He speaks, with justified contempt of 'the manipulations of dishonest speculators', conveniently forgetting those stockpeddling circulars of only a few years ago, which bore his name. M r . Roosevelt, who lent his name and * * reputation 148

to the flotation of Camco, one of the wildest of boom-time speculations, now dares to denounce stock-jobbery. The suckers who placed faith in the business competence of Franklin D. Roosevelt, director of the Consolidated Automatic Vending Machine Company, do not speak over nation-wide hookups, but they have not forgotten." (Henry Morgenthau, Jr., also lent his name to the same venture.) Further illumination is obtainable from Country Squire in the White House, by Flynn, P. 35: "For instance in 1927 Roosevelt and another set of directors organized the International Germanic Company. The directors met and organized in his law office. This company was going to finance German industries and buy the stocks of German corporations. This company too wound up in receivership. "Another promotion of M r . Roosevelt had to do with the airplane. * * He and others organized the American Investigation Corporation and the General A i r Service to operate dirigibles between New York and Chicago. * * * Altogether there were six or seven of these promotions only one of which turned out well—a small company to speculate in German shares. It sold its own shares for German marks and then used the marks in Germany, where the value was still better than abroad, to buy German shares." The worst of the New Deal's many offenses against the people took place under the W . P . A . The most lurid of these were the socalled Arts Projects, under which writers, painters, musicians, actors and playwrights were paid to libel America and its citizens and to conduct open Communistic propaganda. Its director was Hallie Flanagan, frequent guest of Stalin in the Soviet and member of the Board of Editors of the Communistic magazine, New Theatre. She was given an initial fund of $27,000,000. Among those pro-Communist and radical theatre workers to whom Mrs. Flanagan gave immediate employment were V i r g i l Geddes, Alfred Kreymbourgh (Jewish author of a foul revolutionary poem "America"), Meyer Levin, one of whose plays was so obscene that even the "liberal" city administration of Chicago banned it; Langston Hughes, negro fellowtraveler: Michael Gold, recently convicted of labor blackmail in New York, and a Communist-Jew on the staff of the Daily Worker; U p ton Sinclair: Ben Blake, Elmer Rice (Reizenstein), Jewish playwright; Jacob Baker, Jewish assistant to Harry Hopkins when he was head of the W . P . A . . and Clifford Odets, Communistic-Jew playwright: Philip Barber, John Bonn, John Howard Lawson, Albert Maltz, Augustus Smith, M. Blankfort, H. W. L. Dana (radical Bos149

ton professor hauled up several years ago on a perversion charge), George Sklar, P. & C. Sifton — all members of the American branch of the International Union of the Revolutionary Theatre — went to work under Mrs. Flanagan. The " P . Sifton" mentioned was later appointed as Assistant Administrator of the Wages and Hour Act. Under the "Arts Project" division of the W . P . A . , Jew Jacob Baker, appointed, as head of the Music Division, Nikolai Sokoloff, Russian-American director, and as head of the Creative Arts section, Holger Cahill, "fellow-traveler" and former member of the I . W . W . The Writer's Project was headed by Henry Alsberg, the Jew traducer of George Washington Parke Custis, father of Mrs. Robert E. Lee. Alsberg's right bower was Orrick Johns of the Communist magazine New Masses; Reed Harris, too red even for Columbia U n i versity and expelled for that reason; Leonard D. Abbott, Alsberg's field supervisor, an outstanding Anarchist; George Cronyn, "fellow traveler", and Floyd Dell of the American Society for Cultural Relations with Soviet Russia. One anti-Communist Gentile, Samuel Duff McCoy, accidentally got a job with the Writer' Project, but was kicked out by Alsberg and Johns, as was Major William L. Ball, treasurer of the Theatre Project, who made the mistake of protesting against the Communistic nature of Mrs. Flanagan's plays. Among the flagrantly Communistic plays produced under Mrs. Flanagan, who, incidentally, is an intimate friend of Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, were: "Triple A, Plowed Under", in which Earl Browder, head of the Communist Party of America is depicted as reversing a Supreme Court decision; "Battle H y m n " by Mike Gold and Michael Blankfort, a play whose set-model was displayed in New York's Communist Worker's Bookshop; "Turpentine", a story about negro revolt in the South, in which religion is mocked and the negroes depicted as shooting the white "bosses"; "We Live and Laugh" produced by the Yiddish Theatre Unit and praised by the Daily Worker; "Prisoner 1936", a review produced by the Yiddish Unit whose keynote is put in the words of one of its characters: "We love America as one of the most beautiful flowers in the bouquet of the world Soviets of tomorrow." "America, America," an obscene argument for revolution; "The Dance of Death," which not even the Daily Worker could pretend to explain; 150

"Class of '29". also praised by the Daily Worker; It is a matter of record that the W . P . A . Theatre Project did not produce in all of its all-too-long existence — a single anti-Communist play or production. The Jewish controlled Press and Radio concealed or played down these facts from Gentile America. The Theatre Project was particularly active in making propaganda movies for use in C . C . C . camps. Aroused by a flood of protests, Congress recently refused further funds for these "creative" arms of the Communist movement. Roosevelt's R . E . R . A . appointed Hilda Smith, described by Drew Pearson and Robert Allen, Washington columnists, as Harry Hopkins' "Professor of Communism", director of worker's education. Her job was to teach the teachers of some 50,000 American workers enrolled in work-projects schools. She was a member of the board of the notorious Commonwealth College of Mena, Arkansas, and though she denied teaching Communism, she ordered the use of Earl Browder's books as textbooks, as well as the Moscow Primer. Mrs. Smith was defended by Mrs. Roosevelt when she was criticized for her acts. The Rev. Joseph Thorning, S. J. writing in America (Oct. 5, 1935), stated that under Mrs. Smith, students in the worker's schools were forbidden to sing the Star Spangled Banner and encouraged to sing the Internationale. The New Republic for June 10, 1936, states that both President and Mrs. Roosevelt opposed "social discrimination" against the negro, and Mrs. Roosevelt, on numerous occasions encouraged Government agencies to banish all "discrimination" against the colored race. Incidentally, M r . Roosevelt appointed Lucien Koch (head of Commonwealth College) to the consumer's division of the shortlived N . R . A . after the Arkansas Legislature had closed the school because of its almost indescribable immorality. The story of the New Deal support to the radical Youth Congress is recent news. It is enough to point out that, despite the fact that Mrs. Roosevelt got young William Hinckley, head of the Youth Congress, a job on the Federal payroll as assistant to the head of the Department of Education, the Youth Congress, in its recent Washington meeting, was so embarrassingly blatant in its sympathies for Soviet Russia, that the President was forced to administer a mild spanking on the White House lawn and Mrs. Roosevelt to withdraw her more overt support of the body. During their stay in the Capi151

tol, she entertained several of the officers of the Congress in the White House and even provided overnight hospitality to some of them. In 1936, Roosevelt, after receiving high praise from the left-wing Co-operative League of the U. S. A . , sent a three-man delegation to Europe to study the cooperative movement. The men he selected were all known left-wingers: 1. Charles E. Stuart, vice-president of the Export-Import Bank, set up to facilitate loans to Soviet Russia, director of the RussianAmerican Chamber of Commerce, and lecturer at the New School for Social Research of which Mrs. Roosevelt is a director; 2. The ineffable M r . Jacob Baker, vice-president of the Communist aiding Garland Fund, a radical back-log for several communist organizations; and 3. Leland Olds, former industrial editor of the Communist Federated Press, the Soviet-Russian news-agency in the United States, of which William Z. Foster, Chairman of the Communist Party in this country, was the head. In mid-June of 1940 Roosevelt gave Olds — one-time Industrial Editor of the pro-Communist Federated Press, the delicate task of 'protecting' our entire electric power system from sabotage by the 'Fifth Column.' Probably the most serious of all these attacks upon the American form of Government and our way of life have been the President's unconcealed attempts to stimulate class warfare, by methods both direct—such as attacks upon individuals who opposed his policies— and indirect, by coddling of aliens, agitators and radicals to conduct their own foul brand of warfare. He allowed his alien-minded Secretary of Labor to grant unlimited visas to hordes of Jews, European scum and criminals, and encouraged her to defy those who fought such action. While professing to be "profoundly disturbed" by the aggression of anti-Semitic Germany, he continued his special friendship for Soviet Russia after its attacks upon Outer Mongolia, Poland, Latvia, Esthonia, Lithuania and Finland. Professing an adoration for "democracy" he refused, as the Jews control 90 per cent of the scrap iron business, to invoke the Neutrality Act against Japan in its war on China, or against Russia when, with Germany, she invaded Poland and attacked Finland. He extended a warm welcome to the Communist Ambassador Oumansky when he presented his credentials and, on the same day, displayed marked coldness toward the newlyappointed Ambassador from Christian Spain. Within the last few days Joe Davies (who says he is not a Jew), guardian of Post Toasties millions, former Ambassador to Russia and Belgium, now special assistant to the Secretary of State, honored 152

at a royal entertainment Oumansky, Ambassador from Joe Stalin's Soviet Russia. Roosevelt's official subordinates have persecuted honest opponents of the New Deal through abuse of the Income T a x Statutes, and dropped charges against the Huey Long machine, based on those Statutes, when Long died, and his political heirs rushed to Washington to make peace. He winked at the W . P . A . when it openly and brazenly coerced votes of the poor and needy on behalf of New Deal candidates for the Senate and House of Representatives. He allowed the Democratic National Committee to borrow an immense sum from the radical and Communist-penetrated C . I . O . — and used that money for campaign purposes. He paid off this debt, in part, by blandly looking the other way when the C.I.O. began its war on industry by means of sit-down strikes. He rewarded the outstanding apologist of the sit-down, Governor Frank Murphy, by making him first Attorney General and then a Justice of the Supreme Court. He protected and defended his National Labor Relations Board when its illegal assumptions of authority and abuse of the statutes became a public scandal. He refused to entertain patriotic protest when Madame Perkins admitted such notorious revolutionaries as John Strachey and T o m Mann, English-Communists; Henri Barbusse, French-Communist; "Red" Emma Goldman, anarchist; Sandor Garbai, HungarianJewish Communist and associate of the murderer Bela K u n ; and Hans Eisler, writer of Communist songs, a German-Jew refugee; who, incidentally, is now a lecturer at the radical New School for Social Research, of which Mrs. Roosevelt is a director. He ardently supported the Socialist Party's recommendation for the cancellation of the war debts by taking no steps to collect them. He gagged the Naval Intelligence Department when it disclosed the extent of the Communist movement. No greater offense to this nation could have been committed than Roosevelt's recognition of Soviet Russia from the bloody hands of Comrade Litvinoff (Finklestein). As he later told the radical American Youth Congress, he took the stand that the Russian Revolution —he did not mention the over [5,000,000,000]† persons shot and starved to death by its leaders—was a force "for great good". He denounced the Supreme Court and mocked one of its decisions as of "the horse and buggy days" and, failing in his effort to control the court by forcing a special Act of the Congress, managed eventually 153

to pack it with a K l u Kluxer, an Austrian-born Jew, a principal apologist of the sit-down strike, a professor who never tried a case, and a political appointee; all this in order to get a Court that would undermine the Constitution and interpret the law of the land a la Brandeis, Frankfurter and Roosevelt. He made a violent and overt attack upon certain members of Congress—distinguished figures of his own party—in order to punish them for their opposition to his extra-legal activities and political conduct. This was, in effect, an assault upon the voter and an attempt to hamper his right to vote as he chose. The net result of these acts, plus their inevitable failure to restore industrial production, put the workless to work, and protect the rightful interests of the farmer, was to create class warfare of the bitterest sort, pile up the greatest debt in all history, undermine internal stability and water the blood of independence of the individual citizen. Added up, they have brought us to the verge of another and even greater "emergency" than any we have ever known—the threat of a great war: a nation torn by internal dissension and debt, dominated by radical bureaus and anti-American bureaucrats: a nation little prepared to defend itself against a formidable enemy. Even this new threat, the President and the New Deal have turned to political and selfish purposes. Crying for "unity" and the support of all the people, it is now proposed that we get ready for Armageddon under the direction of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Hopkins, Henry Morgenthau, Sidney Hillman, and the team of Cohen & Corcoran. The New Deal and the New Dealers have systematically conducted a wordy warfare with nations with whom we are at peace. The President, the Secretary of State and the bureaucrats have preached a neutrality which they do not even pretend to practice. Through his aides and claque the President has let it be known that he "foresaw" this great war, which is not at all remarkable since his every act indicates that he encouraged it by interfering with the foreign policies of the belligerents—supporting and inciting one side and flouting the other—while at the same time weakening this nation's capacity to defend itself. The President has made several spurious offers of "mediation for peace". None of the belligerents, and particularly Germany and Italy, paid the slightest attention to these proffers; for the very good reason that the President, by his many angry expressions of prejudice, had disqualified himself of all capacity to honestly mediate the differences between the quarreling nations. 154

When the President "foresaw" our need for guns, tanks, airplanes and bombers, and the probable conscription of America's sons to fight and die in Europe, he asked Congress for a blank check and, getting it, allowed it to be spent on monkey-houses, fan-dancing, leaf raking, garden cities for job holders, free golf links, radical theaters, and other vote baits for loafers and ne'er-do-wells. These are the facts as we consider Roosevelt's foreign policy and its danger to the American people. C O U N T R Y GOING B A N K R U P T T H E ROOSEVELTS G E T T I N G RICHER COMMUNISM GROWING "The President's family has been greatly admired by many for the resourceful manner in which its members have utilized their opportunities while in the White House. * ** "The earnings of James, eldest son, are best known. After leaving Harvard, where he failed in his examinations, he began to study law. In that very first year as a law student, an insurance company offered him a job at $15,000 a year. The work consisted, according to James, in merely sitting at a large desk. * * * "Jimmy left his job as the President's secretary to take a position as some sort of vice-president with Samuel Goldwyn—getting $50,000 a year—at a time when Goldwyn and other movie magnates were under indictment by the Federal government. Although his place of business was in Boston, he wrote insurance policies on large business concerns all over the country—National Distillers Corporation, Associated Gas and Electric (also under government pressure), Armour and Company, Stone and Webster, Columbia Broadcasting Company, insurance on Federal cotton shipped to China by the R F C . and many others. It was something new in insurance and in presidential family behavior. * * * "Elliott Roosevelt got $25,000 a year as president and general manager of the Hearst chain of radio stations. * * * "But of course the largest earner is Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, who puts them all in the shade, including the President. * * * But Mrs. Roosevelt has earned just about twice that much, or around $1,200,000—or will have by the end of this year. * * * "Her magazine articles — which sell for one dollar a word—have brought her around $75,000. Her newspaper columns fetch $21,000 a year—more this year. Her lectures are very profitable—she charges $1,500 a lecture, but speaks 155

for less in some places. These bring in about $75,000 a year. What she has made on her books is unknown. Her broadcasts bring from $3,000 to $4,000 apiece. She has had about 150 broadcasts. She has broadcasted for Beauty Rest Mattresses, a shoe manufacturer, a toilet preparation and others and is now appearing for Sweetheart Soap. The fees from these broadcasts have aggregated about $450,000. Her total earnings are something near $1,200,000. * * * "Her daughter, Mrs. John Boettiger, is now writing for a Hearst paper of which her husband, John Boettiger, is publisher—a job he got after he married Mrs. Dahl—where she is reported to be paid $12,000 a year. * * * "The total earnings of the whole family during the eight years will amount to something over $2,500,000. This is certainly an excellent showing for a period of pronounced depression." Country Squire in the White House, by Flynn, Pp. 114-119.



THE NEW WORLD WAR — RESPONSIBILITY OF ROOSEVELT AND WORLD JEWRY G E O R G E W A S H I N G T O N ' S A D V I C E T O HIS C O U N T R Y "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens, the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real Patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests." "Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?" Washington's Farewell Address. PRESIDENT J O H N A D A M S "The public negotiations and secret intrigues of the English and the French have been employed for centuries in every court and country of Europe. Look back to the history of Spain, Holland, Germany, Russia, Sweden, Denmark, Prussia, Italy, and Turkey for the last hundred years . . . all the powers of Europe will be continually manoeuvering with us to work us into the real or imaginary balance of power." John Adams. PRESIDENT T H O M A S JEFFERSON "Their (Europe's) mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. All their energies are expended in the destruction of the labor, property, and lives of their people. On our part never had a people so favorable a chance of trying the 157

opposite system, of peace and fraternity with mankind, and the direction of all our means and faculties to the purposes of improvement instead of destruction. * * * "And the system of government which shall keep us afloat amidst the wreck of the world will be immortalized in history. "I am so far from believing that our reputation will be tarnished by our not having mixed in the made contests of the rest of the world that, setting aside the ravings of pepper-pot politicians, of whom there are enough in every age and country, I believe it will place us high in the scale of wisdom to have preserved our country tranquil and prosperous during a contest which prostrated the honor, power, independence, laws, and property of every country on the other side of the Atlantic." Thomas Jefferson. PRESIDENT JAMES MONROE "The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of liberty and happiness . . . beyond the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves We have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries. . ." James Monroe. PRESIDENT JOHN QUINCY A D A M S John Quincy Adams in 1820, then Secretary of State and afterwards President, according to Charles A. Beard in his recent book, A Foreign Policy for America, stated: "The political system of the United States is essentially extra-European. To stand in firm and cautious independence of all entanglement in the European system has been a cardinal point of their policy under every administration of their government from the peace of 1783 to this day . . . Every year's experience rivets it more deeply in the principles and opinions of the nation." Beard continues on his own behalf to state: "Thus the head of the first league created in the nineteenth century for the ostensible purpose of preserving the peace and the political status quo of Europe was politely but categorically informed that the United States could not abandon its extra-European position, that it could not become associated with collective efforts of European governments, even to apply 'Christian maxims of benevolence and brotherly love' to the intercourse of nations." 158

HENRY C L A Y Henry Clay, one time Secretary of State, said: " B y the policy to which we have adhered since the days of Washington . . . we have done more for the cause of liberty in the world than arms could effect; we have shown to other nations the way to greatness and happiness . . . Far better it is for ourselves . . . and the cause of liberty, that, adhering to our pacific system and avoiding the distant wars of Europe, we should keep our lamp burning brightly on this western shore, as a light to all nations, than to hazard its utter extinction amid the ruins of fallen or falling republics in Europe." GROVER CLEVELAND—RICHARD OLNEY President Grover Cleveland's great Secretary of State, Richard Olney, speaking for Cleveland, in 1895, against England's violation of the Monroe Doctrine informed the British Foreign Minister, Lord Salisbury: "That distance and three thousand miles of intervening ocean make any permanent political union between a European and an American state unnatural and inexpedient will hardly be denied. But physical and geographical considerations are the least of objections to such a union. Europe, as Washington observed, has a set of primary interests which are peculiar to herself. America is not interested in them and ought not to be vexed or complicated with them . . . "Europe as a whole is monarchial, and, with the single important exception of the Republic of France, is committed to the monarchial principle. America, on the other hand, is devoted to the exactly opposite principle—to the idea that every people has an inalienable right of self-government." PRESIDENT WOODROW WILSON "The effect of the war upon the United States will depend upon what American citizens say and do . . . The spirit of the nation in this critical matter will be determined largely by what individuals and society and those gathered in public meetings do and say, upon what newspapers and magazines contain, upon what ministers utter in their pulpits, and men proclaim as their opinions on the street. "It will be easy to excite passion and difficult to allay it, Those responsible for exciting it will assume a heavy responsibility, responsibility for no less a thing than that the people of the United States, whose love of their country and whose loyalty to its government should unite them as Americans all, bound in honor and affection to think first of her and her interests, may be divided in camps of hostile opinion, hot against each other, involved in the war itself in impulse and opinion if not in action . . . 159

"My thought is of America. I am speaking, I feel sure, the earnest wish and purpose of every thoughtful American that this great country of ours, which is, of course, the first in our thoughts and in our hearts, should show herself in this time of peculiar trial a nation fit beyond others to exhibit the fine poise of undisturbed judgment, the dignity of selfcontrol, the efficiency of dispassionate action; a nation that neither sits in judgment upon others nor is disturbed in her own counsels and which keeps herself fit and free to do what is honest and disinterested and truly serviceable for the peace of the world . . . "Shall we not resolve to put upon ourselves the restraints which will bring to our people the happiness and the great and lasting influence for peace we covert for them?" Woodrow Wilson. ROOSEVELT, THE MEDDLER Roosevelt in his international policies on behalf of World Jewry, world-wide extension of his own power and might and that of the British-Jewish Empire, has dishonored the traditions, policies and advice of the great dead—Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, M o n roe, John Quincy Adams, Clay, Cleveland and Olney and is, in words used by Benjamin Franklin, "Enleagu'd with friends of that detested tribe, Whose god is gold, whose savior is a bribe." A book called The Primer of New Deal Economics, published in 1933, contained a statement of the New Deal plans, hopes and policies to be put into operation by the Jews, Baruch, Swope, Morgenthau, et al. On page 161 we read: "In foreign affairs the greatest hope we have is that with the coming of the New Deal has also come the end of a particularly costly one of these American fixed beliefs or ideas— the 'isolation' idea." * * * Foreign statesmen have remarked how hopeful it is that a statesman is in the White House who understands the objective attitude, and who will realistically compromise and shift his ground when the facts indicate that he should." Raymond Moley, for seven years Roosevelt's brain truster, collaborator, speech writer, insider, etc., who knew everything that was going on, has written at length about the efforts of the President and his group to change our foreign policy and draw America into the European melee. In a book entitled After Seven Years he writes: 160

* * for nearly twenty years our internationalists had assured us that neutrality was not only impossible, but 'immoral.' "Day in and day out such doctrine as this had been preached by those who advocated our participation in collective efforts to 'enforce' peace * * * "Roosevelt himself, as a League advocate in the early 'twenties, had subscribed to the theory of a collective world order to maintain peace through force, if necessary. * * * "it might fairly be said that his foreign policy had been characterized, from the beginning, by a slowly deepening and strengthening internationalism." After Seven Years, Morley, P. 377. "He had gone beyond the terms of the Neutrality Act in October and November, 1935, to discourage shipments of raw materials to Italy. * * * "So much was largely a policy of scolding, protest, and ineffectual gesture. Added up, it amounted to more or less cautious adherence to the doctrines of the devotees of collective security." Ibid. P. 378. * * In a realistic world, by evading facts and talking about a strict enforcement of the letter of the law, we were dissipating not only our energies but our influence. "Still, unfortunate as these forays into internationalism had been, they were a long step removed from the policy foreshadowed in Roosevelt's 'quarantine' speech at Chicago on October 5, 1937." Moley continues: "It was one thing to scold, lecture, and make diplomatic faces, and another to take a position of active leadership in mobilizing a concert of powers to prevent the repudiation of what force had achieved two decades before. A n d yet those intimates who had heard Roosevelt yearning, in the spring of 1935, 'to do something' about Germany, could not be surprised by the open invitation (Prime Minister Chamberlain hailed it is a 'clarion call') to the 'peace-loving nations' to join with the United States in 'a concerted effort to uphold laws and principles.' * * * " A n d so the transition from viewing-with-sorrow-andalarm to doing-something-about-it had already been made in October, 1937. By January, 1938, a policy of active, though unacknowledged, 'cooperation' with England * * * was under way. "After Munich, Roosevelt at once summoned home our ambassador to Berlin. There were consultations with A m bassadors Phillips, Kennedy, and Bullitt. The consensus seem to have been agreement that the time had come to do 'something practical,' to stop Germany, Italy, and Japan 161

and to assist England and France. That 'something' was to be a revision of the Neutrality Act to permit France and England to buy guns and munitions in this country. And the reason for that frankly and designedly unneutral step, it presently appeared, was no longer the 'lawlessness' of the Axis powers so much as it was the belief that only by throwing our weight on the side of England and France could we protect our own interests. "Ambassadors Bullitt and Kennedy then went off to Florida. When they had spent some weeks there, it was suddenly discovered that they were in possession of burning secrets which must be communicated to the House and Senate Military Affairs Committees. There followed a magnificently publicized dash back to Washington, intended to convey the idea that a world calamity was in the offing, and, on January 10, 1939, the imparting of information presumably so sensational that it could not be made public. "Observers recognized in these dramatic maneuverings signs of a State Department campaign to 'educate' the American public to the need for a 'stronger' foreign policy. "The drive apparently started four days after the incorporation of Austria into the Reich, on March 17, 1938. when Secretary Hull spoke of 'collaboration' along 'parallel lines' to prevent the spread of 'the contagious scourge of treaty breaking and armed violence.' It had been carried on through the device of speeches and statements by administration subordinates during the spring and summer period. In the autumn it seems to have been given impetus with the mysterious spread of fear-provoking stories out of Washington . . . The President himself had helped the 'educational' campaign along with the announcement, in his annual message of January 4, 1939, that 'there are many ways short of war, but stronger and more effective than mere words, of bringing home to aggressor governments the aggregate sentiments of our own people.' "But now, after January 10th (1939), and the ambassadors' reports on conditions in Europe, a new argument gained currency. One variant of it was the statement that the preservation of the British sea power was essential to our national future. Another had been phrased by the Marquis of Lothian, recently appointed British Ambassador to the United States, months before. 'The British Commonwealth,' it ran, 'is the United States' outer ring of security . . . If it disappears or is smashed by the Fascist states, so that Gibraltar, the Suez, Singapore, Capetown, and the Falkland Islands fall into the hands of Germany, Italy, or Japan, then, as the British Empire disintegrates, the military powers would crowd around the United States.' " T o still a third variant, it was charged, the President 162

gave expression late in January, after the fateful crash of a new bomber designed for the United States Army drew the veil from an airplane deal with the French that mysteriously began in the Treasury, moved from there to the White House and from there to the War and Navy Departments, with the State Department apparently looking on inactively while Ambassador Bullitt acted as master of ceremonies. "When the lid blew off this transaction, the President, instead of giving out the facts to the public, called in the Senate Military Affairs Committee, clamped a gag on them, addressed them for an hour and a half, and then sent them packing. He must have known that to talk to a considerable number of members of Congress under such circumstances was to invite not only leaks but the most unhealthy speculation. At any rate, stories of a fantastic foreign policy emerged. The President was alleged to have said that America's frontier was on the Rhine. "This story was heatedly denied by the President on February 3rd (1939) 'Some boob' among the Senators had 'thought that one up,' Roosevelt exploded, and the newspapers had embroidered it into 'a deliberate lie.' "But the facts were still not made public, though even so staunch a supporter of the President as Senator Logan of Kentucky said that he remembered 'something being said about our frontier being in France.' Instead, a vague fourpoint statement of American policy was given the press— a statement which left the Senate, the newspapers, and the country cold because it did not explain the bungled plane deal, it did not make clear what American interests were so endangered that the facts must remain a secret, and it certainly did not convince reasonable people that the administration was not up to its neck in the game of power politics. (In June, 1940, Democratic Representative Faddis admitted that Roosevelt had used the words "our frontier is in France" on the aforementioned occasion.) " * * Thus the President's message of April 14th to Hitler and Mussolini * * * was sent with the clear realization that its chances of favorable reception by Hitler and Mussolini were nil. It seems to have been designed largely for American consumption. As such, it was of a piece with Roosevelt's 'I'll be back in the fall if we don't have a war' statement and his Pan-American speech, with its denunciation of 'Huns' and 'Vandals.' "However well-intentioned this policy of building up support for our unneutral intervention in the affairs of Europe by arousing the fears and prejudices of the American people may be, the fact remains that it is a dangerous business. Hysteria rules by no half measures. When you touch off the powder of terror, you get not illumination but a blinding explosion. When you have awakened the animosi163

ties of a people, you have created the foreign policy that will carry you into war whether you will it or no. "The American people have been told that they must help the democracies because two or more forms of government cannot coexist in the world, because the world must become either all democratic or all totalitarian. This, of course, is a fallacy. Should we act on it, entering a war in the belief that we were engaging in a holy war to 'save democracy,' we would find ourselves embarked on wars as hopeless and as bootless as the religious wars of three or four hundred years ago. We should have to learn—as we learned that different religions could coexist within a state under the principle of toleration—that different political ideologies can live side by side. "In point of fact, there has been no scintilla of evidence that Britain and France are at all concerned with the defense of abstract democracy or with a desire to bring all nations to the democratic form of government. The alliances with Turkey and the overtures to Rumania and Soviet Russia and Italy prove otherwise. War has threatened not because of the internal horrors produced by Hitler's intolerance but because of a struggle over the boundary lines of Europe. Only our bellicose patriots forget the distinction. But, however strongly we may feel on this subject, a practical consideration enters. Will war against a government because it is intolerant to its own people help those the government persecutes? Or will it result in an intensification of their persecution and an immediate destruction everywhere of human lives and other precious human values which will be irreplaceable? Will it, for instance, strengthen democratic government in the United States? Or will war bring upon us here a centralized control of life and speech and press and property so absolute that we lose in the United States the very values for which we fight abroad? "If we participate in another general war, we shall certainly be compelled to 'stand by the President.' Free criticism will be restricted. Beginning with the communications industries, our industries will be nationalized one by one. Wages and hours will be fixed. Profits will be conscripted. The gamble we are asked to take is that, after it is all over, the iron hand of government will be withdrawn from our liberties and our property. * * You cannot frankly give to one side in a quarrel what you withhold from the other side without courting, first, reprisals and, ultimately, hostilities. There is no such thing as a little unneutrality. When a nation declares and implements its hostile sentiments toward one side in a conflict, the chances that it can persuade that side of its disinterestedness are pretty slim. It is on this hairline margin of safety that we are now operating. 164

" * * we have contributed toward war in the illusion that we were serving the ends of peace. Like poor Romeo, who 'thought all for the best' when he threw himself between Tybalt and Mercutio, we have merely heightened the tragedy. "We have weakened our capacity to do our job in this hemisphere—which is to protect the integrity of the nations from the North Pole to Cape Horn and build up a genuine community of interests there. "We have destroyed our ability to act, as Wilson implored in his neutrality plea of August 18, 1914, as 'the one people ready to play a part of impartial mediation and speak the counsel of peace and accommodation, not as a partisan, but as a friend.' "We have lost the opportunity to show ourselves 'in this time of peculiar trial, a nation fit beyond others to exhibit the fine poise of undisturbed judgment, the dignity of self-control, the efficiency of dispassionate action: a nation that neither sits in judgment upon others nor is disturbed in her own counsels and which keeps herself fit and free to do what is honest and disinterested and truly serviceable for the peace of the world . . . ' "And whether we meant to, or not, we have neglected our unsolved problems at home." Ibid. Ps. 379 to 385, incl. Moley also refers in After Seven Years, page 68, to a meeting called by Roosevelt to discuss foreign affairs, on November 13, 1932, at which the great internationalist, radical, socialist, America's betrayer from 1914 to 1919, and author of Philip Dru, Colonel Edward Mandel House, was present. Moley says that "It was . . the prelude to a fateful struggle between two schools of thought . . The prize of the struggle was to be the foreign policy of the United States in the face of a war-infested and war-ridden Europe." In January, 1933, before he was inaugurated and after he had deliberately snubbed President Hoover's efforts to win his aid in settling the economic war at home, Roosevelt jumped into foreign affairs by endorsing Secretary of State Stimson's war-mongering efforts to solve Asiatic problems arising out of Japan's invasion of Manchuria. T o o busy or too proud to co-operate with the outgoing administration on pressing national affairs, he let it be known that he was interested in foreign affairs—even in a situation in which he had no real interest. Roosevelt was in the Abyssinia fracas with a vengeance. He took an open hand in helping Foreign Minister, part Jew, Anthony Eden 165

break the Hoare-Laval Treaty, which represented a sensible effort on the part of France and England to solve the Ethiopian question. Simultaneously, the New Deal, with the valiant aid of Mrs. Roosevelt, began fairly to perspire with sympathy for the American negroes— Ethiopia, as everyone knows is populated with Semitic Negroes— and Roosevelt, invoking the Neutrality Act, promptly cut off the shipment of all arms to Italy. (The colored and Jew votes were very important). Secretary Hull and Roosevelt a few days later issued statements which had the highly unneutral effect of calling for a complete stoppage of shipments of every kind to Italy. Ethiopia was an Italian province before anything was done, but the President, as it developed, had burned his fingers again. It was this action, more than all else, that threw Mussolini into Hitler's arms— a truly fateful day in the history of a "peace-loving" President. In a remarkable address delivered by Virgil Jordan, noted Economist and President of The National Industrial Conference Board, before the Foreign Policy Association, on February 24, 1940, it was stated: "Written constitutional guarantees designed to safeguard all individuals against the State were the unique contribution of American society to the humanist movement in Western civilization, and represented its supreme achievement. These have been substantially destroyed in this country during the past seven years through the subvention of voters by public funds, the delegation of law making power to bureaucratic agencies, and the degradation of the Supreme Court into a political party instrument. The fact is that government in America has become an accepted agency of internal aggression. It is no longer expected, and it can no longer be depended upon to perform its primary and essential function of protecting the life, work and property of all individual citizens against attack by any of them. * * * Aggression is the essential spirit of the modern State. It animates the atmosphere, morals, manners and customs of every government today. Its character is most clearly expressed in the personalities in whom its power is embodied—all uniformly in every country warped, twisted, psychopathic personalities whose every word and deed is animated by malice, vindictiveness, hatred and destructive impulse toward individuals and groups who disagree with or oppose them, and who in every official action and utterance are in one sense or another bombing and machinegunning their enemies and seizing their property. Shocking as the realization may be to us, these things are as true in America and England to-day as they are in Germany, Russia, Italy and Japan. They are the dominant factors that would mould the internal economic life and international relations of every country." 166

CARP—RUSSIAN JEW—AMERICA'S COURTSHIP As one more result of Roosevelt's Jewish New Deal courtship of the Communist Soviet, a plot was discovered last fall by the Dies Committee probing un-American activities. The principal figures in this scheme, with one or two exceptions, were Russian Jews. Sam Carp, a little Russian-Jew from Bridgeport, Conn., the brother-inlaw of Comrade Stalin's principal hatchet-man, Comrade Molotov, had Morris W o l f as paymaster, and Joseph Z. Dalinda, another Russian Jew, as his contact man in Washington. It was brought out that Carp had received, between July and December, 1936, no less than $616,372 from Soviet Russia for the purpose of "buying a 35,000 ton battleship" from the United States. Carp confessed that over $50,000 of this sum was to be spent to obtain "influence" in the proper quarters. Dalinda testified that he gave over $20,000 to two Jews, one of whom was Aaron Benenson, now an Assistant District Attorney in New York City and the other the aforementioned and "repentant" Russian-Jew Communist D. H. Dubrovsky. Carp was interested also in buying airplanes and destroyers. He stated that the State Department had authorized the release of plans for a 60,000-ton battleship, which he had sent to the Soviet, and that he had bought $300,000 worth of airplanes "without difficulty". Carp stated that he paid $25,000 to Preston McGoodwin, a Democrat formerly connected with the State Department as American Minister to Venezuela and afterward aide to the Jew Charles Michaelson, publicity director of the Democratic National Committee, and high salaried radio employee, and $32,000 to Scott Ferris, former Representative to Congress from Oklahoma and for years Democratic National Committeeman. Carp and his partner, Morris Wolf, said they paid McGoodwin and Ferris because they had "connections" which would aid them in getting the necessary Government authorizations for their purchases. Dalinda testified: "Scott Ferris is the national committeeman from Oklahoma, is employed by me on this particular job because he was in Congress together with H u l l for fourteen years, and is a close friend of his for thirty years; also because he is exceptionally close to the President, all of which Carp and W o l f are well aware." "Secretary H u l l suggested to Ferris, and here I quote Ferris' wire to me: 'When can you comply with Hull's suggestion so that H u l l can personally arrange conference with Leahy, Acting Secretary of the Navy?' " Baltimore Sun, September 19th, 20th, 21st, 1939. 167

Congress had recently passed a law compelling all agents of foreign governments to register with the State Department. Carp had not complied with the law, which may explain his denial that he was Comrade Stalin's agent. Nevertheless, he was not prosecuted for his failure. In any case, the excitement over the disclosures died almost as soon as they appeared. Russia got nothing but her airplanes and some battleship plans. M r . Roosevelt said nothing however — and this may have no meaning — the White House attacks on the Dies Committee, which had been numerous, violent and bitter, dwindled to a whisper and when M r . Dies again came before the House to ask that his work be continued, he got the money and the men. J E W M O R G E N T H A U T R I E S T O G E T S O V I E T RUSSIA, AMERICA, ENGLAND AND FRANCE INTO PARTNERSHIP During the past two years and since Europe's affairs have gone rapidly from bad to worse and the activities of the President and his backers have entered the stage of sheer frenzy, a number of dangerous but fascinating developments have appeared from time to time. One of these was Jew Secretary Morgenthau's grandiose scheme to buy up all of the world's supplies of essential war materials, such as rubber, tin, manganese and the like, in order to keep them out of the hands of the aggressors. Communist Russia had not at that time joined Hitler as a fellow aggressor. Morgenthau after Prague, A p r i l 1939, apparently did not consider that possibility since he wanted us to ask bloody Russia to become a partner with the United States, England and France in the scheme. One of the Treasury economists made a survey and discovered that this could be done only at the expense of $100,000,000 per month — a sum beyond even the "genius" of a Morgenthau to produce — and so it was dropped. New York Times, December 18, 1939. This was only one of a constant stream of attempts by the New Deal to woo Russia and which are going on today. Beginning with the recognition of the blood-stained regime of Comrade Stalin early in the New Deal, the Administration has conducted a campaign of open and avowed friendship for the Communists. An economic partnership of the sort proposed by Russia — a heavy producer of most of the essential war materials which Morgenthau wished to corner — could have had but one effect, to put us under further 168

obligation to Moscow and to use more American money to bolster the Communist rule and revolution. Nevertheless, Morgenthau was not content with being forced to drop this proposal and countered with the alternate suggestion that England, France, and the United States team up with Russia and put an embargo on these goods directed against Germany. That Jewish idea, too, could not be put across. The extent to which the New Deal has gone to stay in the good graces of the Communists and their fatherland, Soviet Russia, have already been discussed in part. Probably the most significant fact in this picture is that it was not until Stalin became the partner of his alleged mortal enemy, Adolf Hitler, took over Esthonia and Latvia, invaded eastern Poland and attacked Finland, that our political leaders were compelled by public opinion, to make any criticism upon either our own Communists or Soviet Russia. Such warfare as was conducted against this murderous institution had been left to a few Congressmen, notably Hamilton Fish and Martin Dies: and both of these gentlemen suffered in consequence at the hands of the President and his noisy army of Red and Pink adherents. R O O S E V E L T C O L D T O T H E N E W SPANISH AMBASSADOR — A N D V E R Y FRIENDLY TO THE NEW SOVIET AMBASSADOR On June 6, 1939, Roosevelt perfunctorily accepted the credentials of the new Spanish Ambassador from Christian Spain, a country which had just won a long and bloody war against Spanish anarchists and communists, who had been greatly aided by Commissars and fighting men, pilots, bombers, etc., from Soviet Russia. These Communists and anarchists had murdered bishops and priests, nuns and peasants, ruthlessly desecrated cathedrals and churches and pillaged the country far and wide. On the same day in June, 1939, Roosevelt effusively welcomed the new Ambassador from Communistic Stalin and pledged the friendship of America to bloody Soviet Russia. R O O S E V E L T CONTINUES A FRIEND OF T H E SOVIET In Liberty for June 8, 1940, Senator Arthur Vandenberg, of Michigan, came out with a blunt demand that our relations with Soviet Russia be broken off. He gave a number of grounds for this proposal, saying that "it is about time the smug, complacent American attitude — the 'it-can't-happen-here' state of mind — gave way to vigilance and vigor in dealing with the problem of Communistic treachery inside the United States." 169

Describing the presence of the Communist movement, under the control of Moscow as the "chief symbol of treachery is the notorious broken contract between Commissar Litvinoff (Finkelstein) and President Roosevelt." "* * Bolshevik Russia," he said, "has repeatedly and conclusively violated the terms of its agreement with Government of the United States." "The pledges have been violated," he stated. "The contract has been broken." Pointing out that the United States is the one and only republic in the New World maintaining diplomatic relations with the Soviet, Vandenberg says: "* * we should be put upon notice by this unanimous anti-Russian attitude * * that we need to have a powerful reason for officially fraternizing with the Bolsheviks." "There is no such reason," he goes on. 'On the contrary, powerful reason runs the other way and recommends that we harmonize our attitude with that of our 'good neighbors' in the Western Hemisphere. The distinction of being the only Bolshevik bedfellow in the New World (No other state of North or South America has recognized the Soviet") must be as distasteful as it is lonely," he adds. The Senator relates how every previous administration, since 1917, had refused recognition to the Bolsheviks, citing the reports of Secretaries of State Colby, a Democrat, and Hughes as being truly American. He indicates that Roosevelt knew he was dealing with treachery, so he sought to tie Stalin's hands. Litvinoff-Finkelstein, of course agreed to everything Roosevelt demanded and, as Vandenberg puts it, "they exchanged a series of international love letters" all dated November 16, 1933. Among the items in the contract to which the Communists bound themselves were a settling of the Russian debt to the United States and, most important, to quit all relationships with internal revolution inside the United States or with agencies over there or over here that were working against the interests of the United States. Would anyone but a red or a fool expect such a contract to be respected? Apparently Roosevelt did, and he signed the recognition agreement with hosannas of praise to the great land of the Soviets, etc.. etc.. ad. nauseam. And then, as Vandenberg says, "things began to happen. First the debt talks bogged down. After a year of shadow-boxing with the slippery Bolshevik Commissars the State Department mournfully reported: "In view of the present attitude of the Soviet 170

Government we feel that we cannot encourage the hope that any agreement is now possible." A n d that was that. As Senator Vandenberg puts it: "It never was possible. It never has been. * * * Soviet Russia is just as much a defaulter as she was on the pious day when she agreed to quit being one." A half year later the situation was serious. "Our ordinarily placid State Department," Vandenberg writes, "wrote Moscow that the Seventh All World Congress of the Communist Internationale—plotting its world revolution here as elsewhere—was guilty of flagrant violation of the pledge * * with respect to non-interference in the internal affairs of the United States." As was to be expected, Russia was evasive and finally declined either to admit guilt or to do anything about it. Secretary Hull then called for more discussion by sending another note repeating in substance what he had previously charged. "* * he (Hull) had said — in response to my request for the official record — that we had an 'irrefutable case' against Moscow in 1935. Irrefutable! But nothing happened * * * The offense charged was a participation in an effort internally to overthrow the Government of the United States by force." Vandenberg then points out that a House Investigating Committee, in its report of January 3, 1940, specifically and flatly charged that the Communist Party in America "is a foreign conspiracy masked as a political party" and asked that the recognition treaty be revoked. Naturally the Senator said nothing about the fact that the Roosevelt Administration has always been only a little less radical than Moscow, but his conclusion is sound. "It is past time," he says, "for the United States to tell the world that we are not running a polyglot boarding-house in which the visitors can foul our hospitality and get away with it." A few days ago in a dispatch from Helsingfors, Finland, of October 4, 1940, headed "Steinhardt Seen Helping British Seek Red A m i t y , " it is stated: "Laurance A. Steinhardt, American Ambassador to Russia, who returned to his post a fortnight ago from Washington, is reported by his diplomatic colleagues to be actively supporting the effort of the British ambassador, Sir Stafford Cripps, to obtain the assistance of the Soviet Union for England." Steinhardt is a rich New York Jew, a personal friend of President Roosevelt and Morgenthau, and connected with the millionaire New York Jews Untermyers, Guggenheimers, etc. 171

The courtship of the Communistic Soviet by England and Roosevelt has again become most ardent. The Jewish and Roosevelt control of our radio companies permits Earl Browder, convicted felon and Communistic candidate for President, to promulgate his revolutionary doctrines over the radio at will, at the same time denying to patriotic Americans the freedom of the radio. In Boston, on October 6th, 1940, Browder advocated an alignment of the United States and the Soviet Union as "unmatchable in world politics and morally invincible."

ROOSEVELT A N D W O R L D J E W R Y INCITE POLAND, ENGLAND, AND FRANCE TO A WORLD WAR ON GERMANY ROOSEVELT A N D B U L L I T T PLEDGE AMERICA'S HELP When, early in 1940, the German Government published its White Paper, including quotations from diplomatic documents seized in Poland, a great to-do was made in pro-Ally and New Deal circles about this "attempt to influence an American election." Every effort was made to keep down discussion of the documents, and two of our Ambassadors mentioned in them — Bullitt in Paris and Kennedy in London — were allowed to dodge the questions Congress wished to ask. Secretary Hull hurried Bullitt back to Paris. The White House issued a half-way denial on behalf of both Kennedy and Bullitt and uttered some vague nothings about taking such statements with a grain of salt. H u l l and Kennedy, who are honorable, never made categorical denials. The chances are they did not know all that was going on. The half-Jew Bullitt was the only person who gave a direct denial, but this cannot be expected to carry much weight, if any, in view of his record. The documents were not released in full to the newspapers. Within a week the noise died down. We shall quote the passages showing some of Roosevelt's emissaries were against compromise and were instigating war. The documents contained a great deal of background information about affairs in the United States and Europe, but most important of all they detailed statements of Ambassador Bullitt, the substance of which was shocking to the American people. One report, from Polish Ambassador Potocki from Washington, dated November 21, 1938, contained some startling disclosures. Potocki describes a long talk he had with Bullitt in Washington, and stated that Bullitt had great influence with the President. 172

According to Bullitt, so Potocki further states, "the United States, England and France must arm tremendously in order to face German power, and that when the moment was ripe a last decision could be sought * * He said that the democracies wished for martial conflict between Germany and Soviet Russia which might subject Germany and force her to capitulate." At this point Potocki says that he asked Bullitt whether the United States would get into such a war, to which Bullitt replied: "Undoubtedly yes. But only if Britain and France move first." This statement was probably the high-light of the public's interest in the German White Paper. As usually happens when a sensational story hits the headlines, the headlines obscured more than they revealed. The significant thing in the aforementioned statement was not only that Bullitt thought this country would eventually go to war if England and France did, but that the democracies, viz: England and France, with all the resources of the United States secretly pledged, were working on a scheme by which they proposed to attack Germany. Document dated Jan. 12, 1939, from Polish Ambassador in Washington, stating Propaganda mostly in hands of Jews, who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda extremely coarse and presenting Germany as black as possible—nevertheless extremely effective since public here completely ignorant and knows nothing of situation in Europe * * * Situation here excellent platform for public speakers of all kinds for emigrants from Germany and Czechoslovakia, who with great many words inciting public, with most various calumnies. They are praising American liberty which contrasts with totalitarian states. It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign which conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia almost completely eliminated. Soviet Russia if mentioned at all mentioned in friendly manner and things presented in such way as if Soviet Union co-operating with block democratic states. Thanks to clever propaganda sympathies of American public completely on side of Red Spain. This propaganda war psychosis being artificially created. American people are told that peace in Europe only hanging thread * * that in case of world War America also must take active part in order defend slogans of liberty and democracy in world. President Roosevelt was first one to express hatred against Fascism. In doing so he was serving double purpose: first, he wanted to divert attention of American people from difficult and intricate domestic problems, especially from * * struggle between capital and labor. Second, by creating war psychosis * * he wanted induce American people to accept enormous armament 173

program. * * Unemployed today already number twelve million * * Only huge sums running into billion which treasury expends for emergency labor projects are keeping certain amount peace in country * * As to point two I can only say that * * Roosevelt, as clever player of politics * * speedily deviated public attention from domestic situation in order to fasten it on foreign policy * * Munich Pact came to * * Roosevelt as God-sent * * Reigning hatred against everything which in any way connected with German National Socialism is further kindled by brutal attitude against Jews in Germany and by emigree problem. In this action participated Jewish intellectuals, for instance Bernard Baruch, Governor of New York, Lehman,. * * judge of Supreme Court Felix Frankfurter, Secretary of Treasury Morgenthau and others who are close personal friends of President Roosevelt. They want President to become champion of human rights, freedom of religion and speech, who in future shall punish trouble mongers. This group, people who want to pose as representatives of 'Americanism' and 'defenders of democracy' in last analysis are connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry. "For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with interest in its race, was putting of President of United States at this 'ideal' post of champion of human rights was clever move. In this manner they created dangerous hotbed for hatred and hostility in this hemisphere and divided world into two hostile camps. Entire issue is worked out in mysterious manner. Roosevelt has been forcing foundation for vitalizing American foreign policy and simultaneously * * to procure enormous stocks for coming war for which Jews are striving fully consciously * * *" In this report, Potocki repeats his belief that attacking fascism helped Roosevelt divert attention from rapidly growing anti-Semitism. This is the oldest of political dodges — the "red-herring" trick. In another report from Washington, dated January 16, 1939, eight months before Germany invaded Poland, Potocki told of another talk with Bullitt as the latter was leaving for Paris. Says Potocki. "I got the impression that he (Bullitt) had received M r . Roosevelt's precise reaction to the present political situation (in other words this is Roosevelt's foreign policy) which is roughly as follows: An activation of American foreign policy sharply condemning the totalitarian powers. (This is precisely what Roosevelt did do when he addressed Congress that same month). 2. An acceleration of military, naval and air rearmament costing $1,250,000,000. (Note. The President multiplied 174

this by three in May, 1940, and since raised it to over $20,000,000,000). 3. Britain and France are not to enter any discussions involving territorial changes. (It was the refusal of England and France to discuss Germany's demands for "territorial changes", viz: the return of Danzig and a right of way across the Polish Corridor that started the war. The last item lets the cat out of the bag. In it we see the terms under which England and France were induced by Roosevelt, Bullitt, etc, to refuse to discuss peace and to precipitate a second World War). 4. A moral assurance will be given that the United States will jettison its isolationist policy and place total United States financial and raw material resources at the disposal of Britain and France, as well as actively participating on the side of Britain and France. (Everything that has happened up to June 10, 1940, proves that Potocki's report was accurate). The subsequent report from Polish Ambassador Lukasiweicz in Paris, to his superiors in Warsaw, states that Bullitt also discussed the possibility of war between France and Italy and repeated his earlier statement about America going into the war "to end it." The envoy went on to prophesy, on Bullitt's information, that this country would sell France planes because the French army was America's "first line of defense." This, too, tallies exactly with what eventually Roosevelt declared. The Polish envoy to Paris also quotes Bullitt as using almost the same words he had used to Potocki, to which he added that Bullitt had said that the United States "controls several means of compulsion" which could be used against Germany and Italy which might prevent developments of a political situation not desired by the United States. "One thing seems certain," are his prophetic words, "that Roosevelt's policy will pursue the aim in the near future of supporting France's resistance, resisting Italian and German pressure, and weakening England's tendency to compromise." Roosevelt and World Jewry demand no compromise, but insist on another World War with all its terrible consequences. This is a sufficient explanation of the Jewish Press, Radios and Roosevelt's opposition to Chamberlain and Bonnet, who sought peace by compromise, and their support of Jewish Eden and Jew Mandel, who itched for battle: of Roosevelt's ardor for Russia, his hints of war to come and everything else he has done to override American opposition to fighting Europe's wars. In reports from the Polish Ambassador in Paris, dated March 29, 1939, and June 16, 1939, it was stated that "Bullitt asked me" 175

(Polish Ambassador) " i f we would accept a mutual alliance if Britain and France should propose such an agreement. Bullitt stated that he had asked U. S. Ambassador Kennedy in London to visit British Prime Minister Chamberlain and emphasize the responsibility of the British Government." "Bullitt re-asserted that the United States was in possession of means with which it could exert real pressure upon England. He will seriously consider the mobilization of these means." The report cited a memorandum of the Polish Commercial A t t a c h é in London dated June 16, 1939, in which he reported a long conversation with United States Ambassador Kennedy, in which among other things, Kennedy stated: "He would emphasize the necessity for English financial help for us" (Poland) "when he saw the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary" (of Britain) "* * * he" (Kennedy) "emphasized that America's sympathies for England in case of conflict would to great extent depend upon determination with which England would take care of European states threatened by Germany." It is timely to point out that no people in the world know the Jewish problem better than the Poles. Though the Polish Ambassador naturally denied authorship of this report, it is known to be accepted as true in Diplomatic channels. The above Documents bring in a new note in this discussion. We hear of Roosevelt actively encouraging Britain and France to go to war and there are plenty of other factors indicating that this is precisely what Roosevelt did. So much for the German White Paper. The question is not whether the German diplomacy is above "doctoring" such reports, but whether the facts, the prophecies and the policies contained in these documents disclose Roosevelt's real and secret foreign policy. The answer to that is known to every American today. Speaking of these Documents, General Hugh Johnson said: "So the Germans say that B i l l Bullitt said that if war should break out we wouldn't take part in the beginning but 'will in the finish.' So what? M r . Bullitt wasn't Ambassador to Poland and he wasn't speaking as Ambassador to France or in any official capacity. He was just shooting off his face. Everybody who knows him, knows be is strongly pro-Ally, and militant too, which is more important than this incident." Roosevelt, the Jews, England and France sicked Poland into the war and left her to die in all her misery without the aid of a single soldier, a gun or an airplane. 176

ALSOP A N D KINTNER — ROOSEVELT WHITE PAPER Recently two young Washington columnists, Joseph Alsop and Robert Kintner, published a book called the American White Paper. Alsop is related to Roosevelt and it is apparent from the disclosures, reservations and concealments of the book that he had an inside track to the White House and the State Department. The book was obviously issued at the instance of the New Deal to obtain more active intervention by the American people in Europe's war. Roosevelt and the State Department are reducing to a minimum the use of the mail or the cable to our European representatives, and it has been stated that most of our foreign policy is determined at secret conferences and over the telephone to Europe. In the Wilson administration the treasonable activities of our roving Ambassador Edward Mandel House, Ambassador Page, Secretary of State Lansing, etc. have only come to light in recent years largely because they were foolish enough to put some of the record in writing. Roosevelt, Bullitt and the State Department are too cagy for that. The only way the American people w i l l ever find out how they were sold down the river for the Jews and England will be from papers in foreign archives similar to the ones found and disclosed by the Germans when they captured Warsaw. Alsop and Kintner sum up by asking "Should the war be of long duration, the future will hold many questions. If the democracies exhaust their cash, as they probably w i l l in about two years, will we give or lend them the wherewithal to carry on? Or will we close the American arsenal to them, and run the risk of their defeat? If defeat threatens them for other reasons — the superior German air power, for example — will we change our policy, to assist them in ways no longer 'short of war' "? Though Alsop and Kintner say the American policy-makers "seem already determined not to send troops abroad", it must be perfectly apparent to anyone who reads the book that Roosevelt, in his lust for world power and his devotion to World Jewry, has not only meddled in Europe's politics but has sought to dominate them, sought to overthrow the Chamberlain government and remove Bonnet from the French cabinet because of their unwillingness to precipitate a World's War on behalf of World Jewry, and has pledged all of our resources to the British and French governments provided they would make war. This means, first, bombers and munitions without stint; second, the repeal of the Johnson Act and the supplying of billions of dollars worth of munitions, either as a gift or upon 177

the scrap of paper promises of England and France; third, the use of our fleet in the Pacific; and if these do not suffice, first the sending of our young men to death and destruction as pilots of bombers; second, the sending of our fleet from the safety of America to waters infested with submarines and threatened with deadly bombers; and lastly, if all these are not enough, our boys will be sent to die in France and England for World Jewry and the British and French Empires. Among the statements made in the Alsop-Kintner book are: "The Munich crisis of 1938, when, as someone remarked, the end of our world began,' was the turning point in American foreign policy. Before Munich this country's role in world politics was chiefly that of a chorus, somewhat overgiven to gloomy gesture and exhortatory speech. "* * * It is no wonder, therefore, that the American policy-makers watched the course of events with extreme disquiet, and that even then there were signs their do-nothing mood would not prove durable. "Although they had to be resisted, temptations to do something were not lacking in the days of Munich. From the start the English and French, frantically trying to satisfy Hitler by peaceable means, frankly longed for our influence to help hold him within bounds. Almost simultaneously with the Berlin embassy's warning, Bullitt and Joseph Patrick Kennedy, our mercurial ambassador in London, reported overtures from officials of the French Foreign Office and from the British Foreign Minister, Lord Halifax. The overtures, probably concerted in advance, took the form of suggestions of 'continuous consultation' during the coming emergency. * * * "Caution predominated, imposed both by American public opinion and by a European situation too explosive for Johnny come-lately interference. * * * "Caution was not quite enough. * * * Almost daily he (Roosevelt) asked Bullitt and Kennedy, Hugh Wilson in Berlin and William Phillips in Rome, Is there anything we can do to help?' Regularly the answer came back, Not without making some commitment.' And in view of American public opinion, a commitment was quite impossible. * * * * * * * * "Then during the days of Munich, world peace itself, in which the country's vested interest was so immense, had been immediately threatened by the rise of the new kind of state. In trying to guard this immense interest it had been necessary to excise commitments, refuse joint action, avoid even a promise of further economic co-operation, and speak 178

only in those moralistic and exhortatory terms which are the common currency of American diplomacy. Public opinion still insisted that this was the proper course, but the policymakers were no longer satisfied meekly to accept public opinion's verdict. * * * * * "The President said he 'had all his fingers crossed' on appeasement. * * * * * "Failing to make aggression impractible, the President still had a plan to make it dangerous. This was a revival of the theory behind his 'quarantine' speech at Chicago in 1937. * * * "The future was accepted and prepared for in the course of an event so amorphous that it is difficult to describe exactly, yet so significant that it may almost be called the crux of this history. This was a quiet, unrecorded series of talks after Munich between the President, Hull and Welles. "* * * To the President, H u l l and Welles our interest seemed clear. We must prevent war if possible, and if war proved inevitable, we must do our best to assure victory for the other democracies. "* * * But. while we had the power, our people continued to lack the will. Clear though our interests seemed, the President dared not assert our influence, utter a threat or offer a commitment, for fear of the political consequences. * * * "A more vital second decision was reached late in November ("1938). Do-nothingism had produced the Neutrality Act, and in the Neutrality Act was embedded the arms embargo, withholding essential aid from the democracies in time of war. The embargo was an important point in Hitler's strategy. Its mere existence negated the policy of methods short of war. Without a move to repeal it, the peace offensive would be whistling in the wind. Aware that the time was politically unripe, the President and the other two discussed the problem prayerfully and at length. Finally they agreed they must attempt repeal" (of the Neutrality Act) "of the embargo in the next session of Congress." "* * * The peace offensive — the effort to cow Hitler into peacefulness on which the President, H u l l , and Welles had also decided in their talks after Munich — was strictly an ersatz policy, in which every move had to be carefully calculated for maximum effect in Germany and minimum effect in the still isolationist United States. Furthermore, it was founded on a double anticipation, of a change in opinion here, and of a change in Europe, where English and French appeasement leaders like Bonnet and Chamberlain privately 179

resented it as placing them in a pusillanimous light before their followers. * * *

* * * * * "Early in November (1938) the young Jew, Herschel Grinszpan, murdered an attaché of the German embassy in Paris. Frightful pogroms promptly broke out all over the Reich. American opinion recoiled in horror at the news from Berlin, and the President saw his chance. In the State Department meeting a strong faction favored a mere written expression of disapproval to Hitler. They were overruled by the President in a long final discussion at the White House, and on November 13 a cable of recall was sent to Hugh Wilson in Berlin. * * * The purpose was to convince Hitler, Ribbentrop, and the rest that if American opinion would support such violent affronts to Germany at this time, something much worse was to be expected later. By hind-sight it seems rather like singing songs to a tiger, but then the President hoped that immediate repeal of the arms embargo would give substance to his big talk. It was with the double intention of seeking repeal and hastening the change in American opinion that he set about preparing his annual message "on the state of the union' to the incoming Congress. * * * The President said: (quoted in the Alsop and Kintner "American White Paper") "Words may be futile, but war is not the only means of commanding a decent respect for the opinion of mankind. There are many methods short of war, but stronger and more effective than mere words, of bringing home to aggressor governments the sentiments of our people." Alsop and Kintner continue: " * * * the President and H u l l and Welles, had lost touch a little with domestic opinion. For them the European situation was an immediate reality which cried out to be dealt with. To others, who did not read the cables, the incidents of the peace offensive only suggested that the President was war-minded, unneutral in the legal sense, and even perhaps guilty of ponderable improprieties. These suspicions, whose public expression constantly negated the peace offensive, came violently to a head in the queer incident of the French air mission. * * * Johnson" (Assistant Secretary of War, went over the head of the Secretary of War) "acting on his own, promptly reversed former procurement procedure and obtained new designs greatly superior to the Heinkel. Meanwhile, for all Woodring knew, the bombers built for his competition were the best the army had on order. 180

"Into this situation, in December, (half-Jew) William Christian Bullitt injected a French mission bent on buying American planes. W i t h great brilliance and remarkable farsightedness, Bullitt mixes a failing for Oppenheimism. He kept the Frenchmen elaborately under cover, and persuaded the President to make (Jew) Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr., their liaison with the government. The French wanted bombers of the Woodring competition design. Woodring still wrongly believed these planes were the army's best. When at last he learned of the presence of the mission, he" (Woodring) 'accused Morgenthau of trying to give military secrets to the French. There followed a ridiculous but bitter game of Box and Cox, which was only terminated when the President, advised by Louis Johnson, ordered the army to release to the French the superseded Woodring competition bombers and the Curtiss P36 pursuit ships which subsequently did so well against the German Messerschmitts. Then in February a French flyer crashed on the coast, and all the bitterness boiled over in an investigation by the Senate Military Affairs Committee. The President, disquieted by the committee's obvious feelings toward himself, invited the Senators to the White House for a talk. "Occurring in a lull in the rising storm, the Senate committee's visit to the White House oddly summed up the fundamental misunderstandings in the matter of foreign policy. * * * 'War,' (Roosevelt said to the Senate Committee, gesturing toward the listening Senators), 'would directly affect 'the peace and safety of the United States. * *' "Without noticing the Senators' growing uneasiness, * * Then he added: " 'That is why the safety of the Rhine frontier does necessarily interest us.' " 'Do you mean that our frontier is on the Rhine?' asked one of the Senators, breaking the listening silence. " 'No, not that. But practically speaking if the Rhine frontiers are threatened the rest of the world is too. Once they have fallen before Hitler, the German sphere of action will be unlimited.' "Such talk was strong meat even for internationalists. * * * Suspicion of him grew still stronger: repeal of the arms embargo was further deferred, and the ersatz quality of the peace offensive was fully revealed. "Searching for weapons to implement the peace offensive, the President had meanwhile laid hands on the economic powers so casually granted by Congress, and so often turned to unforeseen account in New Deal foreign policy. " * * * W i t h war more imminent than ever, they began 181

to think of other aspects of American wartime policy besides aiding the democracies by 'methods short of war.' * * * "Probably a quarter century must elapse before we know whether the European foreign offices were correct in fearing war last A p r i l . * * * " A s usual the President had been on the trans-Atlantic telephone, calling his ambassadors to ask if there was anything he could do. As usual the answer had been coming back, 'Not without making some commitment.' And as always public opinion put commitments out of the question. * * * At worst," (President's plan) "by asking the dictators point blank whether they would fish or cut bait, it ought to provide a breathing space in which England and France could continue to re-arm. At best, it might give England and France time to make encirclement effective. * * * (German charge of attempted encirclement is here verified, and they tried to buy Soviet Russia into completing the encirclement.) "Accordingly the message was put on the wires for Rome and Berlin, where it had the effect of a sudden explosion. * * * the German and Italian peoples were angered by the intervention from abroad. * * * Mussolini's came first, an infuriated single sentence in a speech. * * * Then, after the answers had been given, there was no more crisis, and the business of drumming up emotion had to begin all over again. " * * * H u l l (whose wife is a Jewess) urged fighting for repeal (Neutrality Law) * * * This time, at last, Pittman confessed that the prospects were far from fair. Thereupon the President and H u l l took the fight into their own hands, beginning a series of conferences with wavering Senators and Congressmen. They discussed what to say in advance, and each supplemented the other. " * * * The Senate was so sluggish that it was decided in June to start the final drive in the House, where repeal had to be sponsored by Sol Bloom, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The pushing impresario of George Washington, the Constitution and, in the forgotten '90's. of a cooch dancer at the Chicago World's Fair; Bloom is one of the Congressional seniority system's broadest jokes. "* * * Repeal of the arms embargo was the crux of the President's foreign policy. 'Methods short of war,' the distinction between political and economic commitments in Europe, 'disarmament and an opening of trade,' the theory that neutrals were 'parties at interest' in a modern world conflict — all these concepts were less immediately important than repeal. W i t h repeal refused the United States almost ceased, for a while, to have a foreign policy. * * * * * (The President asked Morgenthau in April 1939): 182

" 'Henry, are you ready for the worst? Because things look so bad you ought to be.' " * * * In the ensuing week, the Treasury was the scene of a remarkable succession of meetings, at which Morgenthau and his aides planned wartime protection of the American economy with representatives of the State and Agriculture Departments, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve Board, the New York Federal Reserve Bank, and the New York Stock Exchange." Numerous and grandiose steps of Morgenthau at Roosevelt's direction to prepare for war are enumerated by Alsop and Kintner, but a deep and suspicious silence is maintained as to Morgenthau's efforts at this time (April, 1939) to form a partnership of the United States with Soviet Russia, England and France, at tremendous cost, to corner all the war materials in the world. Not a word from Alsop and Kintner as to the courtship of the Soviet and Roosevelt's cold and formal greeting on June 6, 1939, to the new Christian Ambassador from Spain and his fulsome welcome on the same day to bloody Stalin's Ambassador, notwithstanding the troops of the Soviet had but recently left Spain, where they had murdered priests, bishops, nuns and peasants, desecrated churches and pillaged private property; not a word about pledge of aid to Poland, England and France. During the Summer of 1939, the President went ahead with his encouragement of England and France to war. Alsop and Kintner continue: Then, when every financial eventuality had been provided for, the entire program was embodied in a group of executive orders, and when they had been passed by the President and the Justice Department, these stored in Morgenthau's safe, to be used as needed when war came. * * * * * " * * * This boundary" (a bad public atmosphere and the people's possible reaction) "was also unfortunately crossed, through small fault of the President's with the appointment of the War Resources Board. " * * * For some time Secretary of War, Harry A. Woodring, Assistant Secretary Louis Johnson, and the wise veteran of the last war, (Jew) Bernard M. Baruch, had been expressing concern to the President over the state of national defense. A year or so before, Baruch had been so troubled by our small production of smokeless powder that he had offered to advance $3,600,000 of his own to build a smokeless powder plant for the government. The office of the Assistant Secretary of War is legally charged with the periodic preparation 183

of industrial mobilization plans, and Johnson had been particularly insistent in pressing the President for the appointment of a civilian advisory committee of industrial experts to check his plan. During the spring both Baruch and Johnson had revived this proposal. Early in August, 1939, as soon as Congress was out, the President * * announced to them, 'I want to set up a War Resources Board.' " * * * the President * * told him that Edward L. Stettinius, chairman of the U. S. Steel Company, was 'the man'. Stettinius, drafted by telephone from the White House, * * * When they had finished they called the President, and he approved. Then came the rub. Although the board's function was intended to be purely advisory, its mere appointment was sure to cause some alarm. Actually the alarm was vastly increased by a foolishly phrased announcement in which Johnson and Edison implied the board would take over American industry when war came. Alsop and Kintner do not stress the fact that upon our information and advice, England and France had at this time naval and military officers in Moscow endeavoring to win Stalin away from Hitler and complete Germany's encirclement. After the European war started, the President illegally declared a limited emergency in America. Alsop and Kintner stated: * * * As limited emergency is not a legal concept, Jackson" (the Attorney General) "did not quite understand. The President thereupon scribbled the first paragraphs in his own hand. (Roosevelt flunked at law school.) * * * * * " * * * The Congressional chieftains had already warned the President, on the other hand, that if the arms embargo was to be removed from the Neutrality Act, some other mandatory regulation would have to be substituted. Their plan was to offer a cash-and-carry measure, forbidding the extension of credit to belligerents and requiring them to transport their purchases in their own vessels. * * * "It was curious because it did not once refer to the real aim behind the repeal drive, to permit the democracies to use the United States as their arsenal. Instead, it opened with a general statement that all must work together in the cause of peace. * * * * * * * * * * * Garner and Warren Austin, both strong believers in the President's constitutional supremacy over foreign policy, argued as H u l l and Davis had, that outright repeal of the whole Neutrality Act ought to be demanded. 'If you try that,' said Key Pittman to the President, 'you'll be damn 184

lucky to get five votes in my committee." * * * The other moment of interest was also occasioned by a remark of Austin's, 'If you want my opinion, I think we should indicate our purpose to support the democracies, and legislate with that in mind.' To this the President answered, I'm glad to hear you say that, but I can't say it myself.' (Senator Austin is a Tory, Anglophile, Republican Senator from New England, who, together with four or more rich and fashionable senators from New England, has ardently supported the President in all of his efforts to put English and Canadian interests ahead of America and get billions of blood money for avaricious death merchants). * * * The President's oldest literary adviser, Judge Samuel Rosenman of New York, the last member of the original brain trust still in occasional active service, had been summoned from New York to be present, as he is commonly summoned when the President feels that a state paper has great import. " * * * Yet somehow, as he (the President, in his address to Congress) spoke, there rose the collective emotion that must inevitably come when the representatives of a great people, even such unpicturesque, shambling, and often ludicrous representatives as the Congress, meet together to decide a fundamental, future-changing question. " * * * Then," (from August 1938 to September 1939) "as now, the political tabus forbade public frankness. * * * * * "Present American policy is obviously a heavy bet on the first alternative, the second is that the war will develop into a prolonged stalemate. In that case, the theory that neutrals are parties at interest' might be given a wartime application. Fearing the world chaos that would ensue when the greatest and richest nations had fought, quite literally, to a finish, the neutrals might agree to intervene under the leadership of the United States. * * * "The third alternative is that the democracies will be seriously threatened with defeat by the dictatorships. In this war, there is no reason to count on a military victory of England and France, or even on their ability to maintain a stalemate. Should they be on the eve of defeat, the square question would be presented, whether to aid them by methods no longer short of war. " * * * We shall then have to choose between giving the Allies credit, supplies, or gold, and taking the consequences of German victory. "Confronted with such a choice, the present American policymakers would certainly prefer, if they could, to offer the Allies 185

needed economic aid. Many of them would oppose loans, which could never be repaid and would become trouble-breeders like the First World War debts. But gifts of goods or gold to buy them, made in return for desirable political and economic concessions, would be in a different category. "* * * On the other hand, 'there is no reason to suppose that his (Roosevelt's) mind would be closed, if the need arose, to assisting the democracies with our Navy and Air Force.' He mentioned the possibility in his talk with Murphy. And he has been significantly chary of loose Wilsonian promises, declaring only that an American ARMY would not be sent to Europe, and expressing only the HOPE and BELIEF that we would remain at peace."

Alsop and Kintner in their inspired propaganda, with special accommodations behind the scenes of the White House and State Department, never mentioned nor denied the papers found by the Germans when they captured Warsaw, coming from the Polish A m bassador in Washington, involving half Jew Bullitt, the letters from the Polish General Staff in Portugal to the Polish Foreign Minister concerning statements of the American Naval Attaché not the report of the Polish Ambassador to London concerning our Ambassador Kennedy. Is it at all significant that these remarkable documents, involving our intrigue inducing Europe's second World War and the part the Jews played therein, are never faintly referred to, much less denied, in what was intended to be a complete picture of our foreign policy from Munich in September, 1938, to the present day? Is it at all significant that shortly after Munich, Jewish Sir A n thony Eden, enemy of peace by compromise, and opponent of the Chamberlain government, was paid $5,000 and all of his and his wife's expenses by the National Association of Manufacturers, who had announced that they wanted no "blood-money", to make a half hour address of generalities in New York City. Eden arrived in Washington about December 14, 1938, and spent several days in conference with Roosevelt and high officials in the State Department; half Jew Bill Bullitt was summoned by Roosevelt from Paris and Kennedy from London, in November 1938, and an agreement reached that the time had come to do something practical to stop Germany, Italy and Japan and to assist England and France; that, according to the report of Polish Ambassador Potocki, Bullitt was conferring with him at length the latter part of November, 1938, and, in January, 1939, over inducing Poland to make war with England and France against Germany, promising we would be in 186

to end it; and on January 4, 1939, the President helped the educational campaign for war with the announcement in his annual message of January 4, 1939, that "There are many ways short of war but stronger and more effective than mere words" of letting Germany know what would happen to her.



TRICKING AMERICA INTO EUROPE'S NEW WAR "I fear the vermin that shall undermine Senate and school and citadel and shrine; The worm of fraud; the fatted worm of ease, And all the crawling progeny of these; I fear the vermin that shall honeycomb the towers And walls of State in unsuspecting hours." Edwin Markham. Another World War, plotted by Roosevelt and World Jewry, the Jewish controlled American press and radio, the British-Jewish Empire and the French Empire with a large proportion of their press and banks owned by the Jews, is being fought as these words are put down. Another World War with its terrible tragedies of death, suffering and destruction of people, property and government. Again the American Gentiles are shocked and sympathetic with the sufferings of those caught in the dread machine of international conflict. At the outset we were hypocritically besought by Roosevelt and the Jewish press and radio to be "neutral" in deed but not " i n thought". This is a war to renew Jewish domination of Germany and Central Europe and for the maintenance of the power and glory of the British-Jewish Empire. The conspirators in America, England and France are responsible for the greatest tragedy the world has ever known and their names will be dishonored and execrated in history. It never would have started had not Roosevelt and half Jew Bullitt guaranteed to Britain and France all of America's resources, which meant, first, repeal of our neutrality act and supplying them with munitions and bombers without stint; second, in time the extension of unlimited credit; third, the use of our fleet in the Pacific to protect British, French and Dutch interests; if these did not suffice for victory, then our young men as air pilots and our fleet to be sent to Europe: and, lastly, if World Jewry and the British-Jewish Empire could not win without them, millions of our lads to die in Europe's battles. The premeditated killing of a human being by another, save in self defense, is murder—a crime against Christianity, morality, humanity, and civilization, and this applies with greatest guilt to the wholesale slaughter by one nation of the people of another who have not attacked or harmed them. After this illegal, secret plot was negotiated, Roosevelt, the Jews and the war-mongers of this Country, of England and France 188

sought to overthrow the Chamberlain government and to replace it with Churchill, part Jew Eden, Jew Hore-Belisha and Duff Cooper. They plotted to get Bonnet out of the French Cabinet and to substitute Reynaud, Jew Blum and Jew Mandel. The ardent but unsuccessful courtship of bloody Stalin and Soviet Russia was insisted upon by Roosevelt, World Jewry and war-mongers of America, England and France. One of the reasons for the Roosevelt-Eden plot to overthrow the Chamberlin government and remove Bonnet from the French Cabinet was because they would not agree to pay the price Red Stalin demanded to encircle and defeat Germany. At Roosevelt's and the Jews' insistence, England and France guaranteed the boundaries of Poland in order to encircle Germany and renew Jewish control. This guarantee of the boundaries of Poland was the direct and proximate cause of the World's War; in fact, it knowingly necessitated it. As Chamberlin, distinguished author and correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor in Europe, states in The Confessions of an Individualist: "I cannot agree with the contention that the present war was unavoidable for France and Great Britain. Certainly it was not inevitable until the British guaranty to Poland was granted. No war is unavoidable unless the frontiers of a country have been violated or unless some country so close as to be essential to the strategic security of the neighbor state is attacked. It is certainly not true that any attack must produce an international conflagration. "Hitler, left alone in Eastern Europe, would have built up an economic empire there which might have occupied him for years. There would have been every possibility, had England and France kept their hands off in Eastern Europe, that the German dictator would have clashed with the Soviet Union, because his ambition would certainly have extended beyond the Soviet frontier." Ibid. p. 253. "Poland had consistently rejected Hitler's more moderate offer of a settlement based upon German annexation of Danzig, with a Polish free port in the city and an automobile road across the 'corridor.' " " * * a general war was almost fatalistically pre-determined from the moment when Great Britain gave its guaranty to Poland and with France, reversing its policy in regard to Czechoslovakia, placed itself at the head of the movement to block German expansion in Eastern Europe, thereby paving the way for the German-Soviet agreement. It is unlikely, I think, 189

that Hitler would have come to terms with Stalin if he had been given a free hand in the East." Ibid. p. 271. "The refusal to permit Austria to unite with Germany, the placing of three and a half million Germans, against their w i l l , under Czech rule, the assignment to Italy of the solidly German South T y r o l were all violations of the principle of self-determination which was invariably invoked whenever it would work to Germany's disadvantage. The maintenance of the blockade against a half-starved people many months after the armistice had been signed (in November 1918). and the taking away of milch cows from a country where many children were dying of malnutrition and many more were growing up with rickets, were naturally not forgotten so quickly in Germany as in Allied countries." Ibid. p. 278. The Daily News of New York recently stated the following in an editorial: The French catastrophe is a part of one of the great tragic ironies of history, as we see it. Hitler said in "Mein Kampf" that he wanted to go east into Russia. The Ukraine looked to him like the ideal place for Germans to colonize and build up a farming and industrial civilization. Hitler devoted pages in the same book to kind words about the British—how he considered them the same kind of people as the Germans, what fierce fighters the British were in an emergency, and how Germany's best single bet would always be an alliance with England. "Mein Kampf" contains some harsh words about France; but by building the West Wall Hitler indicated that he didn't want a war with France—that what he still wanted last August was to go East. "The Allies wouldn't let him go East. They insisted that he come West. He has come West, with a vengeance." Gen. Hugh S. Johnson recently said in the World Telegram: "The fall of France can't be explained. Gossip filtering back indicates a stench to heaven. We are already officially blamed for not doing something that we were somehow supposed to be obliged to do. Who obligated us? Mr. Bullitt did say openly that we wouldn't be in it at the beginning but would be in the end. * * "One by one they fell. Britain and France were helpless or unwilling to stop it. They are responsible for the threat to us today because, finally, came the case of Poland. Britain 190

and France at last were drowsily preparing. But neither was remotely ready. Nevertheless they shoved Poland into the guns. The case was weak. Danzig was a German city. The Polish Corridor was a monstrosity. Furthermore, worst of all, Hitler wanted no war in the west; he was headed east and southeast. "France, under British pressure, joined in declaring war when Hitler marched. It was one of the greatest and most stupid blunders in history—if not the very greatest. It forced Hitler to turn to the west. The result already has been the destruction of six small neutral nations—and the French empire. It terribly threatens the British Empire. It threatens us. "Recriminations have already begun. We hear that France didn't want to go to war and Britain forced her; that the French government didn't want to abandon the defensive and plunge into the disastrous Belgian pocket; that Britain forced it and didn't support it. * * *" The neutral nations would have succeeded, even after war had been declared, in negotiating peace had there not been the insuperable barrier of American and English demands that the Jews be returned to power in Germany and Central Europe, under the guise of the protection of minorities, and Germany's unyielding refusal to even discuss such terms. JEW, ENGLISH A N D A M E R I C A N W A R PROPAGANDA Propaganda in the Next War by Sidney Rogerson, published in England under the auspices of the British Government and edited by the noted military expert, Captain Liddell Hart, contains instructions as to how England can win the war and involve the United States. He states: "Perhaps the most general vehicle of propaganda is the daily newspaper. * * Its practical influence is the greater because it is not obviously propaganda. * * Newspaper propaganda can be insidious in that a paper, whose editorial comment is childishly impartial or non-political, can so present the news of the day as to give a decided propaganda bias to them. It can alter the balance of news by prominence, position and headlines." (Jews have almost a monopoly of the American Press.) Ibid. pages 86 and 87. "One other point needs mention. The popular Press flourishes at the expense of the nerves of the public, whose emotions it assaults in each and every edition. 'Sensation,' 'Amazing,' 'Scandal,' 'Tragic,' 'Horrible,' 'Brutal' — the words come tumbling out of the presses with the jangling crash of granite blocks unloaded on to an iron sheet." Ibid. page 90. 191

* * * Ardent propagandists lashed the British public into a fury at the work of German Zeppelin and aeroplane raiders raining death and destruction on defenceless women and children. * * * The carnage caused by allied airmen in German towns has been kept very quiet, but two instances will be enough to show its quality. In June, 1916, British and French pilots bombed Karlsruhe during the Corpus Christi procession, killing and wounding 26 women and 124 children. In a second raid in September they caused 103 casualties in the same city." Ibid. page 14. " * * * Already the pitch has been reached in Great Britain where it is considered bigoted or reactionary to do other than praise the Jews for their industry and ability. Few papers will risk any attack on the Jews, however well-founded, for fear of appearing even distantly anti-Semitic." (This is more than true in America where it is dangerous to mention any truth derogatory to the Jews, and in New Y o r k it has been made a crime.) Ibid. page 92. "* * It has been estimated that of the world Jew population of approximately fifteen millions, no fewer than five millions are in the United States. Twenty-five per cent of the inhabitants of New York are Jews. During the Great War we bought off this huge American Jewish public by the promise of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, held by Ludendorff to be the master stroke of Allied propaganda as it enabled us not only to appeal to Jews in America but to Jews in Germany as well." Ibid. page 147. "* * All over the world, and especially in the U. S. A., Jews will be active against Germany, and the Jew is a natural and very energetic propagandist, though perhaps not a very far-seeing one. There are, however, cross-currents in the tide of world Jewry—the identification of Russian Jews with Communism, for example, and Palestine, another of our war propaganda hens which may come home to roost!—which should warn us not to rely too much on having it entirely in our favour." Ibid. page 63. "* * * I have said already that the Jew is a more energetic than skillful propagandist, but he is undoubtedly energetic. At present we are with traditional readiness giving shelter to large numbers of persecuted Jews from Germany and Austria. It would be against nature if these immigrants, whether permanent or in passage, did not harbour resentment against the countries which had expelled them, and it should not be grounds for a charge of anti-Semitism to point out that a great many of them are making an active propaganda to incite feeling against Germany." Ibid, pages 76-77. 192

" * * The U. S. A. will still supply the world" (with moving pictures, practically all owned by the Jews). "Not only is she far and away the greatest producer, but, much more important still, she largely controls the machinery of the world film distribution." Ibid. page 112. "There remains the United States—the Great Neutral. In the next war, as in the last, the result will probably depend upon the way in which the United States acts, and her attitude will reflect the reaction of her public to propaganda properly applied." Ibid. page 144. "* * they (the Americans) can perhaps hardly be expected, in the security of their own detached hemisphere, to see European affairs realistically. For one thing, the American is the great champion of the oppressed—and frequently of the soidisant oppressed which may explain why he is so frequently taken in by the 'hard-luck' story of London confidence tricksters! Secondly, the American peoples are still under the influence of much of the Great War propaganda. They are more susceptible than most people, to mass suggestion—they have been brought up on it—and since 1918 they have shut themselves off from reality. Thirdly, they are at this moment the battle-ground of an active propaganda of Labels." Ibid page 146. "* * To persuade her (America) to take our part will be much more difficult, so difficult as to be unlikely to succeed. It will need a definite threat to America, a threat, moreover, which will have to be brought home by propaganda to every citizen, before the republic will again take arms in an external quarrel. The position will naturally be considerably eased if Japan were involved and this might and probably would bring America in without further ado. At any rate, it would be a natural and obvious object of our propagandists to achieve this, just as during the Great War they succeeded in embroiling the United States with Germany. "Fortunately with America our propaganda is on firm ground." Ibid., page 148. " * * American newspaper men in London are of approved mettle, and, though impervious to any obvious propaganda, should nevertheless represent a valuable propaganda force on the strength of the day to day news they send over, quite apart from the fact that many of them like this country." Ibid., page 149. In the Jew New York Times of September 22, 1940, it is stated: " T h e r e i s n o use s h u t t i n g o u r eyes o r t r y i n g t o d u c k the m a t t e r : the m o m e n t has f i n a l l y come w h e n w e i n t h i s corner


m u s t d i g i n a n d prepare f o r a w a v e o f p r o p a g a n d a pictures. E v e r since last J a n u a r y , w h e n ' T h e L i o n H a s W i n g s ' came s w o o p i n g d o w n , there has been a n i n c r e a s i n g r u n o f foreign and domestic films b e a r i n g d i r e c t l y , a n d w i t h v a r i o u s p a r t i a l i t y , u p o n matters w h i c h are foremost a n d c r i t i c a l t o d a y . T h e m e s w h i c h h a d been s k i t t i s h l y s k i r t e d o r a v o i d e d a l t o gether in less perilous times have lately been advanced upon the screen with exceptional fervor and frankness. T h e bars on t i c k l i s h topics h a v e been d r o p p e d for the d u r a t i o n , a n d f i l m s are fast a s s u m i n g the r o l e predestined f o r t h e m in t i m e of crisis. " W i t h i n the past ten d a y s three pictures h a v e h i t l o c a l screens w h i c h f a l l w i t h o u t a n y q u e s t i o n i n t o the category o f propaganda. T w o of them—'Pastor H a l l , ' which is showing a t the G l o b e , a n d a n i t e m called ' A f t e r M e i n K a m p f ? ' d o i n g business a t the B r y a n t (ne C a m e o ) — a r e B r i t i s h m a d e a n d are therefore r o u n d l y a n d u n r e s e r v e d l y a n t i - N a z i . T h e t h i r d a n d m o s t s i g n i f i c a n t i s the M a r c h o f T i m e ' s s t r i c t l y A m e r i c a n and frankly purposeful ' T h e Ramparts W e W a t c h , ' w h i c h i s t e n a n t i n g the M u s i c H a l l . "

The film "Pastor H a l l " is sponsored by Mrs. Roosevelt and Jimmy. "The Ramparts We Watch" is produced by Luce, millionaire New York owner of Time, Fortune, and Life, and an ardent war monger. The Jews are behind all of this propaganda for the death of your sons in their foreign wars. Mrs. Roosevelt, the Lady of the White House, who has professed great interest and fondness for our youth, especially of the Communistic persuasion, recently jeered at the mothers and fathers, and the sons of America who do not desire to die for the Jews and the British Empire. She said in her column My Day, replying to a statement by a Senator on neutrality. "Why must we approach these questions solely from the point of view of what will save our skins and our pockets?" W h y indeed—unless it is to save Jew and English skins and Jew and English pockets—are they more valuable to us than our own? A writer in Harper's magazine, as liberal a publication as is to be found on American news-stands, was shocked at the First Lady's sentiments. Writing in the January 1940 issue, the writer said, apropos of one of Mrs. Roosevelt's utterances: " N o w , four years later, Mrs. Roosevelt's utterances on peace and war will make ironic scanning for men who hold that women preach peace in peacetime and accept war in wartime. "The keynote of her thinking on foreign problems, and of her husband's too, as his 'quarantine' and 'short of war' speeches have shown, is our responsibility to the rest of 194

the world . . If we should stay out, while feeling that we had something at stake in Europe and that England and France were fighting our battle, we should be, she thought, 'doing something to our people spiritually—we should be living for ourselves alone.' . . " 'Did she think,' I put it to Mrs. Roosevelt, 'that a nation, like an individual, should be a knight errant?' She said, 'Definitely yes.' " 'But,' I gasped, 'how can any leader decide such a question for the millions of American boys who would be asked to risk their lives in a foreign war? Have not they the right to think of their own skins?'" Admiral Joseph Taussig—our Jewish Admiral—in testifying before a Congressional Committee dragged the red herring of Japan's possible invasion of the East Indies as a military threat to American security. A newspaper article headed "Rear Admiral Joseph K. Taussig predicts war between U. S. and Japan", quoted him as saying: "I don't see how we can escape being forced into an eventual war by the present trend of developments in the Far East. We would be warranted in using economic and financial means and, if necessary, force to preserve the integrity of China." The real "threat" to America appears in the words of Rabbi Louis I. Newman, of New York, in the Herald-Tribune of March 24, 1940: " . . Either a stalemate or an Allied defeat will be the outcome. " T h i s prospect strikes terror into the hearts of free men everywhere, and should awaken the United States to the fact that every possible aid, except military, should be extended to Britain and France, on condition, however, that a peace treaty be guaranteed which w i l l right some of the wrongs now plaguing the nations. A victory for Hitler, or a stalemate resulting in Hitler's continuance in power, will spell disaster for European Jewry and will have its concomitant effect upon Jewry in the United States." According to the Baltimore Sun of May 8, 1940, Bernard M. Baruch, the New York Jew, urged the creation of an organization "to provide for an orderly conduct of war." During the World War, Bernard M. Baruch, to quote his own words, "probably had more power than perhaps any other man . ." The late Senator Borah said that Baruch was the author of and 195

the power behind the fake Sol Bloom neutrality legislation. In October, 1933, Fortune said of Baruch: "Bernard M. Baruch is called into frequent conferences with the President. He has financed many a Congressional campaign; and is surrounded by a praetorian guard of Senators, who hang on his every word. The figure of Baruch is swelling into enormous dimensions on the horizon of public life. He has been given credit for Hoover's appointment of Eugene Meyer, as Governor of the Federal Reserve Board. He is the Mystery Man of Washington and W a l l Street." Some day we will learn the names of the Senators and Congressmen whose campaigns Baruch has financed. M r . Meyer, a Jew, is now the ardent interventionist owner-publisher of the Washington Post. Rabbi Nahum Goldmann, of London, Chairman of the Administrative Committee of the World Jewish Congress, brought to America to get us to give our lives for World Jewry, told the Baltimore Branch of the organization: "In this country the Jews must assume the responsibility and the leadership of the Jews of the world, whether you deserve it or not. "Who, if not this big community of 5,000,000, leading comparatively normal lives economically, politically and socially, will assume that position?" Dr. Goldmann declared that the mistake world Jewry made was in failure to organize as a political body to exert pressure on statesmen to avert anti-Semitism. "We must understand," he said "that our first reaction to persecution in Europe should have been a political one. But our leaders feared the reaction to a world political body, feared the charge of creating a super-government of Jews. "They believed the Jews have not the right to organize for fear of what a Christian preacher would say over the radio. We did not dare to mobilize our forces, because the fight can only be fought on a world-wide basis. "If we appeal to you (the American Jews), it is because there is no privileged community in the history of the Jewish people. Finally, all Jews in the world will have one destiny. Even the Atlantic Ocean is no eternal barrier to the Jewish problem. "If the European Jews lose, you will not long remain the one privileged Jewish community. Your Maginot Line is in Europe. Think of the Jewish problem in political terms. Make use of this chance, and bring what we want from this conflict." 196

Rabbi Maurice L. Perlzweig of London, Chairman of the political bureau of the British-Jewish Congress, at the Baltimore meeting criticized American Jews for failing to assume "the responsibility and leadership which their favored position in the world put upon them." He then declared that he and Rabbi Nahum Goldmann had come to America with these ends in view. Walter Winchell is a New York Jew whose parents were decent refugees from central Europe. His income is nearly $400,000 a year as a columnist, radio commentator, and scandal monger. He enjoys the friendship of President Roosevelt, Secretary Morgenthau, Jimmie Walker, etc. Of late, in his scandal columns, he has undertaken to tell America how it should wage this British-Jew war, and has impudently cabled advice to the Prime Minister of England, according to St. Clair McKelway, in his "The Life and Times of Walter Winchell." He has joined Sol Bloom and other important Jews in endeavoring to ridicule George Washington. In February, 1938, he charged that Washington "wanted to be called 'High Mightiness' " and "never was a General." As I recall, it was Henry Adams who said about the Jews of Warsaw: "They make me creep." According to the New York Times of May 6, 1940, at a rally of the Workmen's Circle, Jewish fraternal and benevolent organization, at Madison Square Garden, New York City, the remarks of Abraham Cahan, Russian born editor of the New York Jewish Daily Forward, produced an enthusiastic outburst. He said that America's role should not be a passive one. He further stated: "A good example is not enough. Hitler must be defeated. Hitlerism is the great curse of the world. And now that Hitler and Stalin are one, both of them must be destroyed." According to the New York Times, Mr. Cahan then lapsed into Yiddish and continued to denounce both Stalin and Hitler. Cahan had fled to America from Russia to avoid arrest for revolutionary activity. Frederick William Wile, Jewish columnist, continues incessantly to chatter miscellaneous gossip and comment, with the unconcealed purpose of making us die for his tribe throughout the world. Walter Lippmann, Jewish pundit, solemnly argues week after week it is America's destiny to fight for England and France, not to mention World Jewry. "Walter Lippmann, I think, once boasted in the New Republic that the intellectuals had brought America into the World War." (Lippmann will not deny being an intellectual). The Confessions of an Individualist, p. 260. 197

Dorothy Thompson, in many and varied ways very close to Jews, yells and shrieks that a Bundite is under every American bed, and that we had better die in Europe than be utterly destroyed in America. Barnet Nover, Jewish columnist for Eugene Meyer's Washington Post, assumes a profound acquaintance with world affairs to lead us to die for Israel on the Rhine. Jules Semon Bache, a multimillionaire and international Jewish banker of New York City, President of one of the largest Canadian gold mines, Vice-President of the Chrysler Company, and numerous other large American corporations, recently made a speech in Toronto, Canada. Gen. Hugh Johnson wrote in the Scripps-Howard papers: "Under the headline: 'Bache scoffs at isolationists,' the United Press reports that M r . Jules Bache, who is almost our only out-and-out Jewish international banker and interventionist, made a speech in Toronto in which he said that he had not a 'neutral hair in his head' and that the United States should be behind the Allies against Germany 'if for no other reason than that of good business.' He added that the 'professional isolationists were simply after the votes of parents who do not want their sons to go to war.' "Well, if I must be called some kind of an 'ist', because I want to put American interests first, I suppose I am an isolationist. * * * But as between Mr. Bache's argument as a banker that we ought to get into this war 'for good business' and mine that parents ought to want to keep their sons out of war, I like mine best." Jew banker Bache is the father-in-law of Gen. Pershing's only son. On October 9, 1940, Senator Holt called to the attention of the Senate the many millions of dollars that have been invested by the Lehman Corporation in companies having war contracts with the government. Jew Governor Lehman of New York is President Roosevelt's "good right arm." Holt said: "Governor Lehman, when you were going through New York (with the President) making these speeches for conscription, for aid to Great Britain * * I would like to know, when you were doing these things, if you did not know that the Lehman Corporation, owned and controlled by your family, was making hundreds of thousands and maybe millions of dollars out of defense contracts. Was your patriotism spelled 'p-a-y-triotism' or was it 'p-a-triotism'? Time will record, and your good strong right arm w i l l be shown to be a good strong right arm grabbing contracts, and sticking that arm into the pocketbook of its country." 198

Senator Holt went on to show that the General American Investor's Co., of which Jew Frank Altschul of New York is President, had also invested millions in companies having war contracts. A l t schul is an officer in the international banking firm of Lazard Freres, which also has a connection with the Lehman family. Among other members of the dangerous William Allen White Committee are Colonel Henry Breckenridge of New York, director of a company investing in munition contracts, and M r . Fred McKee, Treasurer for the National Casket Co. Major Abraham Robert Ginsburgh, in the office of the Ass't. Secretary of War, born in Poland, son of a Rabbi, has most appropriately been designated to make a casket survey for the U. S. Army as to how many coffins can be quickly supplied for your sons. Polish Jew Ginsburgh at first tried to make light of the coffins to the newspaper men. Holt quoted from an editorial in the Ohio Valley Labor News entitled "Caskets for Whom, When and Where?" which stated: "Then, apparently realizing the reporter was not falling for that line, the facile officer (Ginsburgh) moved a little closer to the actualities of the situation. * * "Pressed in this manner, Major Ginsburgh finally popped out the truth. 'Then, too,' he admitted, 'when you have an army you have to figure that it's going to fight some day. Fighting means casualties, and casualties call for caskets. * * ' " The great Jewish investment houses of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., Lehman Bros., Lazard Freres, Goldman-Sachs, Seligman, Wertheim & Co., Dillon, Read & Co., Bache & Co., etc., control the flotation of a large part of the business bond issues. Since all these issues must be passed upon by the Securities and Exchange Commission, with its difficult, complicated, massive and expensive forms of regulation and registration, it is not undesirable to have a close acquaintance with the Commission. The Chairman of this Commission is Jerome Frank, a Frankfurter Jew. Morgan's son retains some clients of the old firm, and other Gentile bond houses, most of whom for existence have at least one Jewish partner, get a few crumbs that fall from the table of Lazarus. We have little sympathy for the Gentile investment bond houses of New York, because they are in the main decadent and pusillanimous, but growing Jewish monopoly of the underwriting of business securities, gives them a strangle hold on industrial corporations, large and small. "We are in the war now". So stated Eugene Lyons, Russianborn, New York, radical Jew, and editor of the "American Mercury". "Baltimore Sun". March 5, 1940. 199

The Philadelphia Record, owned and published by Julius David Stern, noted New Dealer and radical Jew, stated after Roosevelt's Charlottesville speech that we had declared war on Germany. President Seymour of Yale, President Conant of Harvard, President Dodds of Princeton, President Butler of Columbia, rushed into print calling for steps which would necessarily lead to war, and Frederick William Wile, the Jew news chief, was thrilled by President Seymour of Yale's statement, as construed by Wile, that 90% of his Yale boys would be in the fight. The newspaper accounts, however, indicate that not over 10% of the American youth enrolled in the swank Eastern universities are anxious to give their lives for the Jews, Roosevelt and the British-Jewish Empire. Many of the parents of the young men, whom they had entrusted to these colleges for educational purposes alone, are indignant with the attempted donation to Europe's Wars of their son's lives by the college presidents. The Chicago Tribune Press Service reports a dispatch of July 11, 1940, from Paris, which is quite revealing, stating: "One of the important aspects of the situation in Paris is the rising feeling in all classes of the population against the Jews. "This wave of anti-Semitism, which is growing daily, is based upon a widespread belief that the Jews, through their control of the French press, radio, and banks, were chiefly responsible for pushing France into the war. "It was the French and British Jews, they declare, who were most violent in their criticism of the Munich agreement, and it is affirmed that they had pledged themselves to plunge Europe into war in order to avenge the wrongs of their race in Germany. "It also is not forgotten that Jewish exiles from Germany flooded France with propaganda to the effect that Hitler would be overthrown if he declared war, that the German Army was incapable of fighting France and Britain, and that the German people were starving, thus leading the French to believe that they would win an easy victory. "The fact that leading French Jews, including the Rothschild family and numerous great bankers and industrialists, were among the first to desert Paris in its hour of stress has likewise contributed to stimulate anti-Semitism." Rabbi Stephen Samuel Wise, born in Hungary, and now bellowing for our entrance into the European War to protect European Jews, said he was "Jew first—an American after that", and also 200

declared: "I believe that of all the achievements of my people, none has been more noble than the part of the sons and daughters of Israel which has culminated in the free Russia." This radical Rabbi is one of the most powerful leaders of World Jewry and also a member of William Allen White's war-mongering committee. His relations with the White House are most intimate. On December 8, 1940, over the National Broadcasting Radio, managed by Russian-born David Sarnoff, Rabbi Wise was permitted to lecture Americans on Americanism. The Department of Justice honored Rabbi Wise by designating one of its staff to introduce him. The then United States Minister to Canada, play-boy, multimillionaire James Cromwell, now candidate for the United States Senate under the benign auspices of Frank Hague, Jersey City Democratic dictator, declared for our participation in the war on the side of the Allies in a statement, which, says M r . Ludwell Denny, "was an important addition to the German White Paper on alleged indiscretions of American Ambassadors." The New York Times for June 8th, under the heading "Chamber Favors Armed A i d by U. S.", said: "An American armed force to aid the Allies was favored yesterday by the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York in a resolution amended to delete a clause opposing such action. * * * "Moving to amend the resolution by removing the clause, Albert C. Lord, investment banker, said he was 'amazed' that a resolution asserting that 'a supreme effort is needed to meet an emergency' should be qualified by the addition of a statement opposing armed aid. " 'I think it beneath the dignity of this chamber, when men in England and France and other democratic countries are bleeding themselves white in defense of what they believe to be the right and honorable way of life, for us to say we will send help in materials, but not shed a drop of blood,' Mr. Lord declared. * * " M r . Johnston announced later his appointment of the following committee: (Jewish) "Mayor La Guardia, honorary chairman; General James G. Harbord, chairman of the Radio Corporation of America, active chairman: Colonel Julius Ochs Adler, vice president and general manager, T H E N E W Y O R K T I M E S ; Sherman M. Fairchild, president, Fairchild Engine and Airplane Company; William S. Farish, president, Standard Oil Company of New Jersey; Dr. John C. Parker, vice president, Consolidated Edison Company: Walter S. Gifford, president, American Telephone and Telegraph Company; Major Gen. William N. Haskell, commandant. New York National 201

Guard; Charles G. Meyer, president, Cord Meyer Company; Gerrish H. Milliken, president, Deering, Milliken & Co.; Henry S. Morgan of Morgan, Stanley & Co.; Nelson A. Rockefeller, president, Rockefeller Center, Inc.; George E. Roosevelt, partner, Roosevelt & Sons, and Matthew W o l l , vice president, American Federation of Labor. A l l but Mayor La Guardia, M r . Farish, General Haskell and M r . W o l l are members of the chamber." David Lawrence, Jew commentator and columnist, professes the most conservative and capitalistic beliefs, discreetly interlined with arguments for us to rescue by war his people in Europe. He is closely associated with the Rockefellers and the big financial interests of New York. The New York Times, owned and published by the Jews OchsSulzbergers, and Adlers, has until recently, on account of its ownership and unquestioned devotion to the Jewish cause, been permitted to adopt a more hidden and crafty, though not less strategic, effort to get us into Europe's war on behalf of World Jewry than has been demanded by Jewish advertisers of Gentile newspapers. But on June 7, 1940, in a leading editorial, it takes off the mask and urges forced Army training. It demands in peace time that the American people adopt a national system of universal compulsory military training and says that it has been remorselessly forced to this conclusion because of an immediate threat to America's security. This is only another effort on the part of World Jewry to establish an enormous Army in America to fight the world over for international Jewry and the British-Jewish Empire. Jew Julius Ochs Adler, multi-millionaire Vice-President and General Manager of the New York Times, is prancing around the country, yelling to arms, to arms, millions of boys to arms. On June 8, 1940, he told the alumni and students at Princeton University that a bill would shortly be introduced in Congress which would make compulsory military training for every man in America between 18 and 65 years of age. This Jewish demand was the first information vouchsafed Americans that Congress would conscript them for War. The Jew Adler condemned the current system of voluntary recruiting for the Army and Navy as "inadequate during times of stress". It is reported that a similar address will be made to the students of Yale and Harvard, where the Internationalists, Anglophiles and Jews are also in control. Washington, and his officers and soldiers, fought gallantly at Princeton and Brandywine, and after the Colonies had supposedly achieved their freedom from Britain, together with other great patriotic soldiers of the Revolutionary War, organized the 202

Society of the Cincinnati. The Revolutionary Army had been disbanded, its heroes were opposed to a standing army and named their society for Cincinnatus, the Roman, who after saving his country forsook the sword for the plough. Roosevelt gave his hearty approval to the Jew editorial of the New York Times for universal compulsory military training in peace time, which is not at all remarkable since the editorial would never have been written without his connivance. General Hugh Johnson recently said in the Scripps-Howard papers: " A s an illustration of snap judgments in the highest places on matters of great moment stands the President's approval after having read 'only the first paragraph' of a New York Times editorial which said: 'The time has come when in the interest of self-protection, the American people should at once adopt a national system of universal compulsory military training.' Later on the editorial said: 'We believe that it should be so drafted as to provide training not only for young men but for older men as well.' " * * That means that in its most restricted sense, 'universal compulsory military training' would require us to begin training 7,316,000 men. If we decided to train all the classes that were in 1918 classified as fit and eventually liable to military service * * the total would be more than 10,000,000." Commenting on this unofficial proposal to regiment the nation's youth, the eminent authority, M r . John T. Flynn, recently said: " * * there is a movement which is far more serious for us than the dictators, because the dictators are not coming here and this movement is already here. I speak of the movement for compulsory military service. "Nothing has been so repugnant to free people as compulsory military service. * * But, short of the most desperate compulsion, it is a thing that has always been abhorrent to free men. "It is abhorrent first because it is a seizure of a man's body, time and service. Second, because it tends to organize a country into military units. Third, because it cannot be kept alive without an immense propaganda to infuse the military spirit into the people. And fourth, this means the rise of military leaders. Fifth, it involves huge yearly outlays to keep the great army equipped and paid. Sixth, this cannot be extracted from the people without rendering them willing to submit to the burden. And this can be done only by sowing among them the seeds of fear and hatred of neighbors and exploiting the glamours and rewards of imperial enterprise. * * * "And so for a group of reasons—fear in some places, love of militarism in others, a desire to create an armament econ203

omy for recovery—there is a powerful movement to turn this country into a militaristic republic-empire. "This would be a terrible change in the whole course of our way of life. It certainly ought not to be done hurriedly, in panic, without grave thought. Yet the President, and the worst of the reactionary leaders at his back are trying to rush the nation into this course." Later Flynn said: "Behind all this hysterical drive to turn America into a military camp are factors and forces upon which the light of day has not yet been turned. "It is a fact that responsible Americans in Europe, some of them high officials, have been predicting that America would be in this war within a month. Who are these men? What is their authority for the assurances they feel that this country is to be in this war? Where does this originate? "There has been in Washington and in Europe the feeling in very high quarters that some sort of commitments have been given somewhere by someone. Who? What are they? It is a matter of deadly seriousness to the American people.

"There is plenty of reason to believe that the people have not been dealt with honestly. Take two matters—neutrality and militarism. In September the President denounced the supporters of the Neutrality Act, demanded its revision, declared he was the leader of those who were for true neutrality and that it was his determination to keep America out of the war. N o w is it not clear that he was not for neutrality and that, when he said that, he was not revealing his mind to the people? "He said he was going to keep us out of the war. But he must have known as well as anybody else that in the war just then beginning either the Germans or the English might lose. He said unequivocally he would keep us out. He did not say he would keep us out unless the English and French were losing. He did not reveal his whole intention. For now that France and England are losing he is intriguing, fighting to draw us in. "Take the matter of compulsory military service. Mind, what the President is now urging is not conscription for this war but compulsory service — conscription, the draft, as a continuing policy of American life. "Perhaps you think the President has been driven to this drastic step because of events. But this is not so. He has always been for compulsory military service. He said so in 1920. He has never changed his mind. This is something he has dreamed of. But the people did not know this when they elected him. In 1932 he did not come out and say: 'I favor a permanent draft army for America.' That is the Prussian system of compulsory armies. He did not say it, because if he had he would have been defeated overwhelmingly. 204

"Instead he said the direct opposite. Then the Hoover Administration was spending five or six hundred millions a year on defense. M r . Roosevelt denounced M r . Hoover for spending so much. It was popular to denounce military spending in a country that wanted peace and no part of militarism. So M r . Roosevelt kept his real views to himself and denounced the pacific Hoover for being too warlike. "Before America's entry into the last war, Robert Lansing, then Secretary of State, said: 'We must educate the public gradually — draw it along to the point where it will be w i l l ing to go into this war.' And while the Secretary of State was saying this, Woodrow Wilson was running on a slogan: 'He kept us out of war.' "Men and women might take a look at their young sons who will be ground up in this dreadful war and ask themselves if it is not time to quit being hysterical." The Draft Bill which has been passed is a hideous New York City, Atlantic seaboard, Jewish, Anglophile effort to permanently regiment our American Republic into a totalitarian, militaristic empire, with the immediate purpose of redressing, by an unprovoked war, the Jewish grievances in Europe. It is a new Roosevelt shackle. It, however, is now the law of the land, and unless and until it is repealed or declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States, which is hardly possible by a Roosevelt-packed Court, it should be loyally obeyed, faithfully observed and fully complied with by every patriotic American. If you are, however, interested in your sons and your country's future, you should do everything in your power to elect a Congress that will repeal it, and vote against every Senator and Congressman who imposed it upon you. Sidney Hillman, an Ashkenazic Jew, born in Lithuania, fled to America after the Russian Revolution of 1905-6, returned to Russia in 1921 and in 1922, made a great hit with Lenin and the revolutionary leaders and brought back to America the message of Communism. During the last World War he was made a national figure by Justice Brandeis, Felix (now Justice) Frankfurter, and Louis E. Kirstein. President Roosevelt has appointed him labor's representative to the National Defense Advisory Commission. "His task is no less than to coordinate American labor in the defense industries and to supervise the industrial preparedness of our youth." Saturday Evening Post, October 19, 1940. Hillman, a Communistic Russian Jew selected by Roosevelt to take charge of Labor and Youth in preparation for war. 205

The Rabbis of New York in their Saturday sermons of June 8, 1940, gave their hearty approval of universal compulsory military training for war—of Christian youths as have Presidents Dodds of Princeton and President Conant of Harvard. Princeton and President Dodds were so flattered at the multi-millionaire "spider" Ochs Adler's cordial invitation to Christian lads to die for World Jewry that they promptly made him a trustee of the University. When foreign and domestic Rabbis, Jewish international bankers, Jewish newspapers, columnists and radios clamor for war and the compulsory service therein of millions of our Christian youths, might it not be well to recollect that a resolution adopted June 25, 1936, by Central Conference of American Rabbis at their 47th Annual Convention, held at Cape May, N. J. ( V o l . X L V I of Yearbooks of Central Conference of American Rabbis, p. 74), declared: "The Central Conference of American Rabbis reaffirms its conviction that conscientious objection to military service is in accordance with the highest interpretation of Judaism and therefore petitions the Government of the United States to grant to Jewish religious conscientious objectors to war the same exemption from military service as has long been granted to members of the Society of Friends and similar religious organizations." General Hugh Johnson recently stated: " 'Fairly and without fear or favor.' That is how the President told the governors the selective service law must be administered. * * * " O n the very day the President was making all this clear, his own son, Elliott, was commissioned and called to service as a captain in the A i r Corps. As a flyer? Oh, deah, no. A young man has to work and train for that. Elliott goes in as what airmen call derisively a kee-wee—a bird without wings. "He didn't apply to any recruiting office. The head of the Army A i r Corps, Gen. Arnold himself, assigned him from the 'specialists reserve' to a job in 'procurement'—which means something to do with buying supplies. When asked what kind of a specialist Elliott claimed to be, the officials said that was 'confidential.' * * * " A t his age of 30, he would have been in the selective draft pool. * * * " N o w the President's second son won't even have to register for the draft and take his place on a footing of equality with all other young Americans of his age. Without any discernible military training, preparation or qualification, and without any known preparation for 'procurement,' he is made 206

a 'captain by the scratch of a pen and an officer and a gentleman by Act of Congress.' * * * "Guiltless as I believe this act was at heart, it ought to be undone just as quickly as it was performed. Otherwise it will remain a stench to heaven." Jew Chairman of the Securities & Exchange Commission, Jerome N. Frank, on May 8, 1940, outlined to high Army officers a wartime finance plan for the expenditure of $20,000,000,000 for armaments, according to the United Press. In the papers of June 9, 1940, Pearson and Allen, able commentators, close to the White House, Department of Justice and State Department, stated: "In a war emergency, Trotsky (Jew Communist) would be the most valuable aid the United States could have in unearthing Communist plots. In fact, the Justice Department has even considered the idea of giving him a place of refuge here. "In one of the Metropolitan papers of June 15, 1940, it was stated: "The dynamic Bullitt is vigorously pro-French. The Germans know it well and blame him bitterly for egging on Roosevelt. They account for his attitude by pointing out that he is part Jewish. * * * * "Washington diplomats of Europe's and Asia's neutrals who receive information through uncensored channels say privately that the working population of Paris—anti-war from the outset —blame the American ambassador for the letting of French blood. * * * " Flynn says: "It is very important, however, to realize the existence of various groups eager for American participation in the war, if it should become evident that our participation is essential to defeating Germany. These people constitute a small minority. They are to be found in certain groups, and everybody recognizes who they are. Some of them are intriguing actively to get us i n . " Country Squire In the White House, by John T. Flynn. P. 104. "But we must keep in mind the President's long, constant attitude toward armaments and military training. He is a lover of arms. * * * "But he (the President) goes further than this. If there is one thing that the people of America hate with all their souls it is militarism. By militarism I mean that system of compulsory military training, universal military serv207

ice and national armies that has made a shambles out of Europe. To escape militarism, millions of European immigrants flowed past the Statue of Liberty to America before the Great War. "Franklin D. Roosevelt is one of the few Americans who has advocated the establishment of a national army and universal military service—conscription during times of peace." During the World War Roosevelt wrote:' Is it not time that the people of the United States should adopt definitely the principle of national government service by every man and woman at some time in their lives? * * * This means service in times of peace as well as in times of war and means service in the civilian branches as well as the military branches. The day will soon be at hand when the army and the navy of this great republic will be looked upon by its citizens as a normal part of their own government and their own activities.' Flynn further states when America was at peace, Roosevelt proposed: "On October 11, 1919 (in peace time), he (Roosevelt) again proposed universal military training in the army and navy at the New York State Convention of the American Legion. "The simple truth is—though Americans have not realized it—that we have a militarist in the White House who would, if he dared propose it, establish an army, with peacetime conscription, on the European model. A n d we must be aware of and weigh these facts about him properly before we can understand what the conflict in Europe is doing as it races through his mind." Ibid. Ps. 105, 106, 107. "However, it is not possible to get the people to consent to vast outlays for national defense unless you frighten them, make them fear that enemies are about to assail them, and this is what has now happened. "Put all of these things together—the President's love of military and naval might and display, his truculence about the command of the seas, his well-known sympathies both by blood and sentiment with England, his belief in the doctrine of collective security, his dilemma in finding means to spend money and ways of holding popular approval of spending, the rising tide of political antagonism that was generally recognized before the war began—and you have the conditions that set his mind off in the direction of military adventure. "He has been playing with this subject ever since October, 1937, when the severe recession got under way. He, his State Department, his military subordinates are continuously doing and saying things of a provocative character. On October 11, 1937, before Roosevelt made his quarantine speech, he called in his admirals and asked their advise for an economic blockade


of Japan in co-operation with European powers. The British shied away from this. The American people knew nothing about it. Then came the quarantine speech in which he advocated international action to quarantine aggressors. If that policy had been adopted, it would have meant that England, France, the United States and possibly Russia would have used military power to strangle Japan and Germany economically. That meant the President was actually talking about war under these euphemistic phrases."

Ibid. Ps. 108-109. "Then came the spy scares. These spy stories were not given out by subordinates but by the President himself in order to give them the greatest explosive propaganda effect. The attorney general of the United States was put in the movies to call on Americans to report suspicious cases—to spy upon their neighbors. "After the present war in Europe broke out, the President began personally, directly from the White House, to give out in his own name statements about submarines cruising along our coasts. A l l this could be multiplied many times to show the plain purpose of the President to fill the American people with a fear that this country was going to be attacked by Germany; that as soon as England and France were done for, the United States was next on the list, that Hitler and Mussolini were meditating invasions of South America. Assistant Secretary of War Johnson has been going around the country making speeches saying that we should provide arms for a million men and build the world's greatest navy to resist a German invasion of this country, while Senator Neely of West Virginia, speaking for the administration's so-called 'neutrality' policy, said that as soon as Hitler defeated England and France 'he would come to Canada with the French army in the English navy, build a Siegfried line along the Canadian border, organize Sudeten areas in German cities like St. Louis and Milwaukee and reduce the United States to the fate of Poland.' "The President has now thrown off all pretense of neutrality. But he is still trying to make people believe that the Germans can invade the United States by airplane—a proposition, so preposterous that he cannot get a single military man to support it." Ibid. Ps. 110 and 111. " A n d when an election approaches, Americans are thinking of the eleven million people still unemployed, of the farm problem unsolved; of the utter paralysis of private investment, of the mounting public debt, of the scandals in Washington and local political machines and a score of other counts in the indictment by Roosevelt's political foes. And the war, the menace to our security, the call to national de209

fense—all this will take the minds of our people off the failure to solve our own problems and will furnish a new excuse to spend another ten or fifteen billion dollars to return his party to power. "What is more serious than all this, of course, is that the President has been 'meddling in' on the European situation for two years, and is increasing his meddling. While proclaiming himself the true neutral, he has been inching the country more and more toward active support of the two great empires. He is now the recognized leader of the war party. There is not the slightest doubt that the only thing that now prevents his active entry on the side of the Allies is his knowledge that he cannot take the American people in yet. He has said privately that he does not want to send men, will, in fact, never do it. If he went in, it would be merely with naval and air forces and with munitions and supplies. This, of course, is another example of the President's method of halfway thinking. Imagine this country going to war and then refusing to supply men to do the fighting!" Ibid. P. 113. M-DAY M-Day is a word we will hear more often from now on. It is the abbreviation for Mobilization Day. The War and Navy Departments take over on M - D a y . Y o u can't blame them for it. The War and Navy Departments, save at the top where Roosevelt rules, are professional bodies of soldiers and sailors, patriots, good, sound, responsible citizens, trained to obey orders and let politics be politics. Such magazines as Colliers, Liberty, etc., have already warned us that when the Industrial Mobilization Plan—as the M-Day plan is called—goes into operation, democracy will die a sudden and violent death. Our political leaders have tried to soften the blow in advance somewhat by saying: "The surrender of all individual rights in war time is undesirable, if it can be avoided, but the assumption of individual responsibilities will be essential to the efficient co-ordination of a national industrial effort." This blue-print of the future is supposed to be a public document but its details are secret. We can, however, give you some information about them. What they amount to is this—complete political control of industry, man-power, the press, finance. As might be expected under an Administration which has gone in for setting up bureaus outside the control of the law and which operate without regard for individual or national welfare, the I.M.P. has set up several bureaus. One important bureau is: 210

Selective Service Administration. The third bureau of the I . M . P . has a personal meaning for you if you are between the ages of 18 and 45 and physically able to take a bullet between the ribs. The job of this agency is to put you into uniform whether you like it or not. It would have some excuse for becoming law if and only if this nation were attacked or about to be attacked. Under it every citizen between 18 and 45 is liable for service. What is more, he will be required to serve until six months after the emergency. A n d who is to decide—under this provision—the length of the "emergency"—who but the President? The provision goes on to say that: "Persons subject to the act who fail to report for duty in the land and naval forces as ordered" can be court-martialed. M i n d you, no one has produced the slightest credible evidence that this country is in real danger of attack, no matter who wins the war now being fought. The next bureau is: Post-War Readjustment. This bureau will have charge of the plans for the end of the "emergency." This "emergency" —especially if it upsets the business of life very much, and surely it w i l l do that,—can last as long as the President wishes. We have a President who thrives on "emergencies", creating them almost at will and whenever he finds that his schemes for dealing with the previous "emergency" have failed to work. We may assume, therefore, the "emergency" that begins when we go into the new World War w i l l be prolonged for an indefinite period. If the people in power when the war begins are in power when it ends — and that is a certainty—we may reasonably expect the post war "emergency" to last as long as they wish it to last. The answer to this proposal is simple. Our people need no I.M.P.—no M - D a y blue-print of Communi-Fascism—to bring them into line for defense of our Republic. This is America. Destruction of Constitutional American Liberty does not prepare us to defend against an external enemy, but rather makes us succumb to internal enemies. The I . M . P . is a plan designed to be put into operation not primarily when we are attacked. There is no prospect that we will be attacked. It is the machinery for that change of our form of government which has been built up during the past seven and a half years under the New Deal. The efforts of the New Dealers to remake our system of government have not succeeded to the extent they 211

plainly wished. They have been slowed up by the Congress, speaking the voice of the people. Therefore, another "emergency"—this time the greatest and most dangerous of all—must be concocted. The war in Europe is that "emergency". Whatever our sympathies, whatever our dislike of Hitler and Mussolini, whatever our ties with "Mother England", whatever our hatred of the sufferings of the war stricken countries, whatever our connection with their trade and business, none of these things is so important as our ability to maintain ourselves as we have always been—strong and self-sufficient under Constitutional American Liberty. In the world that will follow the end of this war, we can be of immense service only as a strong nation, not as one made over in the pattern of those who have been too pro-English, too pro-Jew, too anti-American, too selfish and too dishonest to keep out of war. Not only did Washington see this, but Thomas Jefferson, the father of the party now in power in this country, was equally certain that we have no business, no right, to take part in the quarrels of other nations. Thomas Jefferson warned against entangling foreign alliances with Europe. Europe did not die when Napoleon raged, and America moved strongly on her high road to strength and prosperity. Those forces which, in Jefferson's time, fought to involve us in Europe's troubles, are with us again to-day. The question is, shall we allow them to drain our blood and our resources and our security? In the name of their evil cause they strive to do this. In the name of our peace, our rights, our very safety as citizens, in the name of our sons who w i l l be maimed and killed they shall not again prevail.


XVI E N G L A N D SAYS W E A R E O B L I G A T E D TO FIGHT FOR HER ROOSEVELT "I have ventured, Like little wanton boys that swim on bladders. This many summers in a sea of glory, But far beyond my depth." Shakespeare, Henry VII. The London Daily Express correspondent in New York said, when Roosevelt demanded that we provide a program capable of turning out 50,000 planes a year, "There is no doubt that America is 100 per cent on our side . . We have all of America's sympathy now. Some day we will be getting her help." The London Daily Mail, apropos of Roosevelt's call to arms, said: "Britain and France are fighting desperately to defend vital interests—even their existence—of every democratic nation in the world, including the United States. In that struggle, we may be sure America will not stand idly by and see us defeated and destroyed." The English are never laggard in appealing to our idealism. General Johnson in one of his columns discusses the words of the Episcopal Bishop of E l y : "If I were a citizen of the United States," says the Bishop, "I would not have an easy conscience. Just standing aside doing nothing when a great struggle for liberty is progressing, doing nothing but getting rich quick in the supply of munitions to those engaged in slaughter would not give me an easy conscience." General Johnson goes on to discuss the parallel with 1916-17. He says: "Press reports say that our State Department isn't going to write England any more tart notes about interfering with our rights on the high seas . . but just all such settle quietly —allee samee Walter Hines Page, C o l . House and Robert Lansing. W h y the hell not make public these impertinences and our record of protest, if any—unless Senator Borah was right and the State Department is just a British Embassy." 213

During this period of debate, we have had frank expressions of their attitude from several foreigners, notably Attorney General Conant of Ontario Province, who, after praising our Ambassador Cromwell's private declaration of war, said: "The Allies need America but they need more the moral and particularly the material resources of the United States." Major A. G. Church, of England, said: "It is a melancholy reflection upon the spirit of our times that it is upon Great Britain and France, small communities in comparison with the great American republic, that the responsibility for safeguarding free institutions and the liberties of peoples throughout the world falls, and that numerically the greatest democracy in the world cannot justify, from the safe distance of 4,000 miles, its policy of aloofness." On February 6, 1940, Sir Frederick Whyte, director of the American division of the British Ministry of Information, had some significant words to say about this nation. * * the instinct of isolation still is deep-rooted and the change desired by President Roosevelt in the American mind might be slow in coming," he says, "but where the Kaiser could rely on strong American support, Nazi Germany has few friends. Considering the vehemence of the American temperament, it is not inconceivable that these sympathies may one day sweep away neutrality and sweep America into the crusade which to-day she shuns." Sir Frederick's reference to the absence of defenders of Nazi Germany in America makes it necessary to point out that the nature and extent of the recent propaganda about the "fifth column" of Nazi sympathizers in this country—which has already reached the point of near-hysteria—almost inevitably foreshadows another dangerous step in our movement toward war, to wit, the certainty that, any day now, those who insist upon minding our own business and not intervening in Europe's eternal wars, will be accused of being proNazi, if not actual members of this imaginary Nazi "fifth column." "New York, June 2, 1940. "Sir George Hubert Wilkins, British explorer, to-day predicted the United States eventually would enter the European war. " 'I am sure this country will be drawn in," the explorer said at LaGuardia Field as he boarded the Atlantic Clipper, bound for Portugal. 'The Allies are greatly in need of American resources.' " 'Do you think American soldiers will be taken to foreign soil?' he was asked. " 'I think it likely,' he replied, 'and Americans would have to assist in transportation to get supplies to Europe.'" 214

Dispatch from London, May 17th, 1940: "President Roosevelt's message to Congress competes with the war news for front-page space in London newspapers this morning. The reaction here to the President's address is that he has overthrown a policy of isolation and is preparing America for war. That the United States soon will be dragged into the European struggle on the side of Britain and France is widely forecast. " C . V. R. Thompson, Daily Express (London) correspondent in New York, for instance, informs British readers in a long article in to-day's issue that 'there is no doubt America is 100 per cent on our side . . . We have all of America's sympathy now. Some day we will be getting her help. I doubt if there is more than 1 out of 100 Americans in New York or Washington who believes now that the United States will be able to stay out more than a couple of months." "Similarly a Daily M a i l (London) writer, G. Ward Price, purports to trace the change in American isolationist sentiment in the last month. In an article headed, ' W i l l America Enter the War?' spread over its columns, he says, 'Britain and France are fighting desperately to defend vital interests—even the existence—of every democratic nation in the world, including the United States. In that struggle we may be sure America won't stand idly by and see us defeated and destroyed.' The conservative Daily Telegraph (London) describes Roosevelt's message to Congress as 'the gravest since Wilson asked for a declaration of war against Germany' and comments editorially: 'Roosevelt's appeal that no obstacle be placed in the way of swift delivery of war planes to the Allies despite America's own rearmament needs is taken here as supporting the belief the President is prepared to throw American resources on the side of Britain and France against Germany.' The liberal News Chronicle (London), however, urges "that America should go further in the Allied cause and send what would amount to an ultimatum to Premier Benito Mussolini". A dispatch to the Daily News (Washington, D. C.) of June 5, 1940, is headed "Briton Insists U. S. Must Send War A i d " , and states: "The most out-spoken British appeal for American intervention in the war to appear so far was published to-day in The Daily Sketch. It was signed 'Candidus,' and called on the United States 'to come quickly and unstintingly to the rescue of the Allies' * * *." 215

In the brilliant article by Demaree Bess in the Saturday Evening Post, of May 11, 1940, he states: "For years, the British and French peoples have been listening to a whole flock of American politicians and reformers and other citizens crying that the democracies must stand together against the dictatorships. Now that they are actually fighting Germany, they cannot be blamed for expecting their vociferous American sympathizers to attempt to provide them with whatever help they may require. Under these circumstances, they count upon pro-Ally Americans to keep the war issue alive in American politics until the war ends, or until we get into it. * * * * * To execute these new plans, they must bring more pressure upon European neutrals, perhaps even compelling some of them to enter the war... And they must call upon their friends in other neutral countries, particularly the United States, to do everything possible to send additional help. * * "The whole episode was reminiscent of another American election year, 1916, when President Wilson was getting ready to campaign for re-election." * * * "The American public did not know for years how far President Wilson had been willing to commit us in that spring of 1916. If they had known, they might not have responded so trustfully six months later to his campaign slogan: 'He kept us out of war'. "President Wilson's rashness in committing his country was not revealed in 1916. * * * "Americans who lived in Europe could see that M r . Roosevelt's eloquent phrases, combined with certain obscure diplomatic moves that he began to make, were creating exaggerated hopes of American support in England and France. At that time I * * suggested that unless the American people were really prepared to join England and France in war against Germany, when and if such a war came, their President was raising false hopes which eventually would prove humiliating. " * * History has repeated itself. Once again an American President was intervening in European power politics because he believed he could use his great position to force peace in Europe. Woodrow Wilson had followed that same course in the spring of 1916. And, once more, events proved 216

that European conflicts cannot be resolved by sonorous phrases or by diplomatic moves." "* * It is curious to observe that while Americans were thinking of the President's moves in terms of peace, Europeans were estimating them almost entirely in terms of war. By that time, little hope of lasting peace remained in Europe. The question was how far America would help the Allies in a war against Germany. "A few months later, after the Soviet-German pact had finally lighted the fuse to war, the peoples of Europe, in spite of their pressing personal anxiety over the dramatic progress of the debacle in Poland, watched with strained attention our Congressional debate upon the arms embargo. Once again the American political arena assumed, in European eyes, the aspect of that familiar drama in which the pro-Ally group, headed by President Roosevelt, battled against the dark forces of isolationism, and finally triumphed. Bess continues: "It is almost three years since President Roosevelt began to pull and push the American people back into the thick of world politics. His efforts recall those of a long line of American statesmen who had tried to convince us our 'manifest destiny' beckons to us from the uttermost ends of the earth * * * Mr. Roosevelt has constituted himself, in European eyes, the rallying point for all Americans, whether Republicans, Democrats or mugwumps, who want to swing further Americans support to England and France. For almost three years, he has been dramatized by Europeans as the leader of the crusade which has marshaled the so-called idealistic and progressive portions of America to overcome the selfishness and ignorance of that mass of Americans who must be classed as isolationists." " * * * let us look at the record", M r . Bess goes on to say, "upon which Europeans base their estimates of M r . Roosevelt. Let us look particularly at the European reaction to three sensational moves which our President initiated. "First was his Chicago speech in 1937. The second was his message to Congress in January, 1939. The third was the peace pledge he sought from Hitler and Mussolini in April, 1939. "I was in America when Roosevelt made his famous 'quarantine' speech in 1937, and I recall Americans were not much excited about it. It was interpreted as chiefly directed against Japan. But when I came back to Europe that autumn, I was amazed to discover what a sensation that speech had created. It was hailed as a death blow to American isolationism and a return of the United States to world politics. * * * 217

" M r . Roosevelt's power and authority did not derive from his words, which were no more eloquent than those of many writers and professors. They gained their force because he was the Chief Executive of the United States, and his views were regarded as reflecting American policy. When he spoke, the shadow of the Army and Navy and Air Force fell across his rostrum. * * * * * E u r o p e a n c o m m e n t a t o r s foresaw the f u l l consequences o f that speech better t h a n m o s t A m e r i c a n s d i d . One P a r i s j o u r n a l , L ' E u r o p e C e n t r a l e , f l a t l y p r e d i c t e d that M r . Roosevelt had foreshadowed revision not o n l y of American f o r e i g n p o l i c y b u t o f the a r m s e m b a r g o i n o u r N e u t r a l i t y A c t . T h e speech p r o v e d t o t h i s j o u r n a l t h a t ' A m e r i c a n c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h pacific p o w e r s w i l l b e p r o p o r t i o n a t e t o the danger w h i c h threatens the c i v i l i z e d p o r t i o n o f the w o r l d . ' " T h e F r e n c h R e v i e w , L'Europe Nouvelle, d e r i v e d particular satisfaction f r o m the influence o u r President's w o r d s were l i k e l y to have u p o n E n g l a n d . The British, it declared, were 'anxious not to undertake anything without the United States, but they are now assured that they may take certain initiatives and assume certain responsibilities without the risk of being disowned by the American Government.' "

How well the politicians and press of Europe knew our foreign policy, but the American people are only of late finding out its true import, its parallel understandings and its hidden agreements. The compiler of this pamphlet warned those high in office over a year ago that Roosevelt was plotting to overthrow the Chamberlain Government and remove Bonnet from the French Government, because they were trying to prevent the carnage and chaos of a New World War. M r . Bess continues: "It was easy to understand why Englishmen and Frenchmen, all through the year 1938, snatched whatever comfort they could from encouraging words coming over the Atlantic * * To those of us who were present at the Munich Conference, there was no evidence that the American President's peace appeals had much influence one way or the other. The British and French Governments did not need Mr. Roosevelt's help to make the Peace of Munich. They needed American help only in case they decided to go to war." M r . Bess goes on to say that the British and French "joyously greeted * * * Roosevelt's message to Congress the following January" (1939) because they well knew that Munich did not end the threat 218

of war and his denunciation of dictatorships were "hailed, not as the personal opinion of one individual but as the voice of the American people." He cites the comments of two British publications: "President Roosevelt had issued the same warning that the United States would be aligned with Great Britain and France in the event of a major European war, although, of course, the nature of the American participation cannot be defined in advance." (London Round Table). "President Roosevelt is using the full power of his leadership to hurry along the change to a strong foreign policy." (New Statesman and Nation). The Swiss Voelker-Bund said that the Axis Powers must "consider what the intervention of a country of the importance of the United States would mean to them." "The high point of M r . Roosevelt's efforts to outbluff the dictators came in A p r i l , 1939, when he addressed his peace pledge to Hitler and Mussolini. * * Mussolini became so impressed with Hitler's apparent ability to get away with things that he decided to pick up Albania. This was the most chaotic period of Europe's recent history. And into Europe's turmoil and confusion M r . Roosevelt hurled his messages to the dictators. This move caused a tremendous reaction in every European country. The Paris Temps described it as a sensation and declared: 'This message has put an end, at least in part, to the state of uncertainty upon which the totalitarian states have speculated.' J. L. Garvin wrote in the London Observer: 'Now for the first time Hitler and Mussolini have no doubts. They know it is a certainty that America will be upon them if they strike again at any independent nation whatsoever.' "The Swiss Basler Nachrichten expressed the neutral view that 'If the German and Italian governments return negative answers, it must be known, both in Berlin and Rome, that the United States would very rapidly assume an active role, as soon as the floodgates of war were opened anywhere in Europe.'" In so far as we here in America could see, Roosevelt was not in the least upset by these interpretations. According to Bess, he undoubtedly took them as a fitting part of his scheme to block the dictators. From M r . Bess's report we must conclude that either Europe or the American people were fooled by Roosevelt's maneuvers, and it appears likely that it was America. In this booklet we will quote further evidence to back our conviction that the New Deal, the Jews 219

and the President not only had a big hand in starting the fight, but did so with the knowledge that we would eventually get into it, and that Roosevelt did everything in his power to let Europe know this. Bess continues: "* * British and French strategists have had to change their ideas about the conduct of the war, and some of their new plans are founded on the belief, or at least the hope, that they will have American military assistance before the war is over. * * * "When the war broke out last September, British and French statesmen told some of their American sympathizers: 'If you lift your arms embargo, we can win this war. Your airplanes and munitions will give us the means to tip the balance. We can then bring Germany to her knees by an economic blockade.' * * * "The most powerful neutral, the United States, had unmistakably revealed that its sympathies are more one-sided in this war then they were in 1916. President Roosevelt had proclaimed himself the Allied champion much more definitely than President Wilson did before 1917. * * * " A l l European governments are aware that Americans were so thoroughly disillusioned by the propaganda of the last war that we are allergic to propaganda. So the British and French governments, especially, are leaving us, at least to some extent, to fight out this battle alone. Their hope for further help from us resides largely in the efforts of pro-Ally Americans. It is for this reason that they are watching our presidential election this year with such eager attention. It is for this reason that they are watching President Roosevelt so closely. " * * * the delight of the ordinary Englishman and Frenchman was unmistakable. They had steadfastly refused to believe that the coming of war had changed our President's attitude toward the European conflict. Englishmen and Frenchmen would have been profoundly disappointed if Mr. Roosevelt had not given some indication soon that he was still watching for opportunities to help them. "Meanwhile, French newspaper readers were finding even more solid comfort in such reports as those of George Lechartier, correspondent in the United States for the Journal Des Debats, where M. Lechartier explained that Mr. Roosevelt, by farsighted and subtle political leadership, had made it possible for the United States to intervene in this war with much more immediate and deadly effect than we did in the last war. Pointing out that Mr. Roosevelt had not made the mistakes during the present war in terms of the last one, the French correspondent continued: 'Let us not forget, as President Roosevelt has never forgotten, that one of the greatest weaknesses of the military assistance brought by America to the Allies immedi-


ately after their declaration of war against Germany in April, 1917, was the total lack of military preparedness of the American people. Three months elapsed before the arrival of the first American contingents in France. "President Roosevelt has taken care to avoid a repetition of this inadequate preparedness. By his words and his actions, he has persuaded the American general public, first, of the advantage, and then of the necessity, for the United States to have 'the largest navy in the world' and when the public understood this, he obtained from Congress appropriations to increase the American Fleet and Army enormously. " 'Today America is ready, eventuality.'

or will soon

be ready, for any

"It is obvious that M. Lechartier does not regard our preparedness as wholly defensive in character. He pointed out that American opinion 'is infinitely better educated today, thanks to the press and the initiative taken by Mr. Roosevelt, than it was in 1914-1917.' He found that a growing majority already favored assistance to the Allies 'without any restrictions in the economic sphere.' As for military assistance, the French writer suggested that the American Army, Navy and Air Force are being prepared for action just as quickly and probably more efficiently than if we had actually come into the war last November, when we made the first breach in our neutrality legislation by lifting the arms embargo. This astute French correspondent drew attention to a fact which few Americans have grasped so clearly. The great difference between 1940 and 1916 is that we were totally unprepared then for an extensive war, whereas now our Navy and Air Force are all dressed up and ready to go. "So there you have the picture as it looks from Europe. Allied statesmen see across the Atlantic a country whose President for three years has appointed himself the spokesman for democracies and the scourge of dictatorships. They see that his boldest moves in Europe have been greeted with applause by prominent Americans of every political faith. They see that the American people, under his leadership, have created a Navy and an Air Force which is one of the world's great offensive forces. They see that our armaments added to their own, might smash Hitlerism just as they smashed Kaiserism."

The New York World-Telegram of July 9, 1940, reported an interview with Vivien Kellems, America's leading woman electrical engineer, in which she stated: "In London, where she went at the invitation of the British War Office to discuss orders for the new shell-lifter which her firm is manufacturing, she heard them say in the city, 'We'll hold out as long as we can, then we'll let the two yellow races, America and Japan, fight it out.' * * * 221

"Wherever Miss Kellems went, in England or France, people demanded to know why the United States wasn't in the war. The last American woman out of Paris before the Germans captured it, she was asked why the United States hadn't lived up to its promises. " 'People were furious because President Roosevelt hadn't declared war the night he made that speech in Charlottesville,' she said. 'In vain I tried to tell them that the President couldn't declare war — that only Congress could do that, but they didn't believe me.' " '* * * I came home convinced the European war was none of America's business. Why should we shed blood for a people who hold us up in contempt? They call us yellow? England says she is fighting for democracy. Believe me, there are no lofty ideals to save. The issues are mixed, but they are far from being quixotic. It's for money, for trade, not for democracy, that they are killing one another, on the one hand.' " A dispatch to the Chicago Tribune of September 21, 1940, states: "Swiss papers are more directly outspoken. In an article entitled 'From One Continent to Another,' the Gazette De Lausanne declares that Roosevelt 'has interfered in Europe with an extremely maladroitness,' while another Swiss paper—suggests that American intrigues in European affairs conducted by William C. Bullitt, ambassador to France, were in a measure responsible for the war." In an article published in the Baltimore Sun of August 25, 1940, written by a correspondent of The Sun in France, it was stated: " 'Our government (France) unfortunately believed that the United States would enter the war almost immediately after we declared war on Germany,' a number of Frenchmen have said to me. 'If our government had not believed it, perhaps we would not be where we are.' "The implication is unescapable. Many Frenchmen believe that we, either directly through the heads of our State, or through our accredited representatives, encouraged these foreign powers to go to war, and, worse, raised their hope that it would not be long before armed forces of the United States would be crossing the Atlantic. "Upon returning to Europe about the time the French army was defeated, I was not, however, unprepared for accusations of this character. Long before the war I, as an American living in France, was increasingly worried over the assurance, growing in many minds to a certainty, that the sympathy of the United States for the Allied cause, openly 222

expressed by our highest spokesmen, meant nothing short of an avowed intention of going to war on their side. " T w o years ago * * I called attention to the dangerous situation which could arise if the British and French governments took too much for granted, even if they had received what among European nations would have been considered direct diplomatic events susceptible of interpretation as assurances, that the armed assistance of the United States would not be long delayed in the event of war. " A t the time I wrote that article it was not surprising that this opinion was prevalent. President Roosevelt and Secretary of State H u l l had both made speeches showing a pronounced sympathy for the democratic cause which Great Britain and France were championing. Both Ambassador Kennedy in London and Ambassador Bullitt in Paris expressed the same sentiment publicly in speeches. "This gained force through the fact that both were held up to the public in Britain and France as enjoying unusually confidential relations with the governments of London and Paris. The newspapers almost daily revealed in official statements that both were in frequent consultation with the responsible ministers of the governments to which they were accredited. At one time M r . Bullitt was widely quoted as saying that he did not let a day go by without having personal contact with the French government. " A t the same time, stories were circulating in England and France, and given the support of many volunteer, if unofficial, American sympathizers, that American opinion was already aroused and it would take but a few weeks, instead of thirty-two months as in the case of the World War, to bring the United States into war. " A t the time, I examined into the state of credulity of the French Government and found to my amazement that many of the most influential members of the Government seemed to have swallowed hook, line and sinker. As to the credulity of the British Government I did not have the same possibility for accurate measure, but it appeared also to be yielding to wishful thinking. The Opposition appeared to be completely sold on immediate American A i d . "I did not, however, realize until very recently during a visit to the temporary French capital at Vichy how widespread is the belief in France that the United States encouraged France to declare war against Germany, and that our accredited representative in France had promised—almost immediate armed aid. " * * * small group of newspaper correspondents of all countries who covered the World War and the many international conferences between the two wars. * * * There are not more than twenty of us altogether and the other day in Vichy 223

a dozen of us were seated around the same table. Half were French, one Dutch, two Swiss, one Belgian, one Pole and myself. "One after another they opened fire on me regarding the relation of the American Government to the war, its past responsibilities if any, and its probable future action. "I explained to them the divided state of opinion in the United States, and sounding them out in turn, I found that they all considered that the United States by its official statements, acts and general conduct toward the European states during the past few years had on the whole and to a large degree led Europe to believe that it would again intervene in a European war on the side of Britain against Nazi Germany." In a rush dispatch to Roosevelt on June 10th, Paul Reynaud, President of the French Council of Ministers, stated: " 'Mr. President: I wish first to express to you my gratitude for the generous aid that you have decided to give us in aviation and armament. 'We shall fight and if necessary in our American possessions. " 'I beseech you to declare publicly that the United States will give the Allies aid * * * I know the gravity of such a gesture. " 'You said to us yourself on the fifth of October, 1937: "I am compelled and you are compelled to look ahead." " 'The hour has now come for these.' " On June 13, 1940, Reynaud made a speech in which he said he had sent a second appeal to Roosevelt in which he stated: "France wounded, has the right to turn to other democracies and to say: 'We have claims on you.' * * "But it is one thing to approve and another thing to act. Will they hesitate still to declare themselves against Nazi Germany? "The time has come for them (Americans) to pay their debts. " Y o u know that I have demanded it (help) of President Roosevelt. "It is necessary that clouds of war planes from across the Atlantic come to crush the evil force that dominates Europe. "We have the right to hope that the day is coming when all that power will be placed in force." 224

On June 14, 1940, the London News Chronicle expressed the hope that the United States would declare war, and stated: "A declaration of war by America now would inject an impulse of bounding hope into every Frenchman's heart." The Right Honorable Winston Churchill made a dramatic speech in the House of Commons in Parliament on June 4, 1940, in which he said that Britain will carry on the fight till New World aids. Churchill developed his speech into an appeal for American help. " 'Even if—which I don't for a moment believe—this island or a large part of it, were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British fleet, will carry on the struggle until in God's good time the New World, with all its power and might, sets forth to the liberation and rescues of the O l d . ' " This gallant knight-errant, Winston Churchill, who wanted so much to shed American blood in the last war, and who now is willing to fight until the last dollar of American money is spent and the last drop of American blood is spilt, arranged for the campaign and conducted the retreat of the English forces from Antwerp and the Dardenelles in the last war. In the present war he ordered "the glorious retreat" of the English forces to Albion, from Bergen, Narvik, Dunkirk and Dakar, thus deserting the Norwegians, Belgians and French, whom the English had inveigled into the war. Churchill lays great store upon his descent from the Duke of Marlborough. That English Duke won his title by defeating the French and obtained his military opportunity by his complacence with his sister, Lady Arabella Churchill, becoming the mistress of the King of England. On June 8, 1940, Lord Lothian, His Britannic Majesty's A m bassador to the United States, on his way to address the graduating class of Washington and Jefferson College (God save the mark!), suggested that Britain, the ruler of the seas for centuries, needed and would expect our naval destroyers, as well as our airplanes, guns, machine guns and antiaircraft. Prime Minister Churchill of the British Government, in commenting upon our Dictator President's deal for the transfer of American destroyers for British bases, stated: "There is of course no question of any transference of sovereignty or of any action being taken against the wishes of the various colonies concerned, but for our part His 225

Majesty's Government is entirely willing to accord defense facilities to the United States on a ninety-nine year leasehold basis. * * * "Undoubtedly this process means that these two great organizations of the English-speaking democracies, the British Empire and the United States, will have to be somewhat mixed up together in some of their affairs for mutual and general advantage. "For my own part, looking out upon the future, I do not view the process with any misgivings. No one can stop it. Like the Mississippi, it just keeps rolling along. Let it roll. Let it roll on full flood, inexorable, irresistible, to broader lands and better days." A cable from London, June 6, 1940, is headlined "Campaign to 'Stampede' U. S. Into War Gains in London". The article states: "Since Prime Minister Winston Churchill's appeal to America on Tuesday to back the Allies with all its resources, newspapers here have been publishing long articles urging the United States to get in without delay." In the light of Churchill's flagrant and persistent efforts to get us into this war, it should be well to recollect what he said about four years ago. According to an address delivered by Sen. Rush Holt of West Virginia at the American Forum of the A i r on November 24, 1940, Churchill said: "America's entrance into the war was disastrous not only for your country but for the Allies as well, because had you stayed at home and minded your own business we would have made peace with the Central Powers in the spring of 1917, and then there would have been no collapse in Russia, followed by communism; no break-down in Italy, followed by Fascism: and Nazi-ism would not at present be enthroned in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war and minded her own business, none of these 'isms' would today be sweeping the Continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government." Substantially the same statement by Churchill in 1936 was recently reported in a column of the Washington Daily News. The Patterson chain of papers published an article by Arthur Sears Henning, in which it was stated: "Impatience is being manifested by a portion of the British public with American public sentiment opposing participation of the United States in the war again 'to make the world safe for democracy.' The same type of British mind that coined the term 'Uncle Shylock" in exasperation at the 226

suggestion that Britain pay her war debt to America is now wise-cracking that 'the next war will be between the yellow countries: Japan and the United States.' " The Times Herald of Washington, on June 12, 1940, contained a dispatch from London, which was headed "British stirred by hope U . S. will enter War—full conscription of men, materials soon is predicted". The article stated: London, June 11 (C.T.P.S.)—Diplomatic sources in London today, after close study of President Roosevelt's latest speech, expressed the view America now has moved from benevolent neutrality to the status of "prebelligerency." The question is raised as to how long it will be before American pilots, American planes and American warships will be actively engaged in the European war. This interpretation of the President's pronouncement is being actively propagated in the press here. The London Daily Express, in an article in Wednesday's issue announces jubilantly, "the United States is coming i n , " and predicts American conscription within a month. "Not only will manpower be conscripted but money, materials, factory space and everything else," * * * Admitting America's inability to send an expeditionary force abroad for some months at least, the correspondent points out that she could send a highly efficient air force and vital supplies to aid the Allies and "build up her vast striking power for a decisive blow early next year." The Daily Express (London) writer purports to trace a decline of isolationism, declaring "Smart Aleck Gerald P. Nye and aging Hiram Johnson, who framed the laws forbidding credits to debtor nations, are the only bulwarks of isolationism left." On August 26, 1940, Senator Wheeler charged on the floor of the Senate that Sir George Paish, a guest at the White House on August 16th: "had been lobbying among Senators in favor of legislation that would aid Great Britain although not registered as an alien agent at the State Department." Senator Wheeler declared that Sir George had " 'I am responsible for getting the last war. I am over here now and I United States on a speaking tour. I country into this war.' "

said to him: United States into the am going to cross the am going to get this

E N G L A N D D E M A N D S O U R SONS A N D M O N E Y A most astounding and disgraceful book was published in Sep227

tember, 1940, by the McGraw-Hill Book Company of New York City, with London offices, written by a radical Englishman by the name of H. N. Brailsford, who in the introduction states that he was invited to write it by the McGraw-Hill Book Company after he had published an article in the Pinko Sheet, "The New Republic." Brailsford is a noted and influential English author, newspaperman and professor. The book shows that the English people, with their New York City allies, have determined that at last through press, radio, and President, they have created sufficient fear and hatred in the American public against Germany and Italy to throw off their hypocritical mask and now confess that they want our blood as well as our money. At this time the English say they only need five hundred thousand of our men, but when they have obtained a spacious bridgehead in Europe, millions more w i l l be required. He also advocates a union of the United States and England. In other words, we are to die on the Rhine to save England and assume its responsibilities for a war which it declared without the consent of our Congress or people. " A n Englishman might reply that though England does not in this defensive phase of the war, require more men, she certainly will require them if she ever is able to pass to the offensive. The enemy has almost twice her population. He would add that though he may, greatly daring, venture today to raise the issue of American participation. * * * "* * But if the United States 'came in,' her government would do what the British government has done in its island. It would require every industry to adapt its machinery for the needs of the war. It would limit or even forbid the production of such things as motorcars for civilian use in order to harness for victory all the vast resources that American manufacturers possess. From England to America, by H. N. Brailsford, Ps. 93-94. "* * We have to face in Ireland, divided by the accursed feud between North and South, a baffling problem, both military and political." Ibid. P. 97. "Sooner or later, in 1941 or in 1942, this free island must dare to take the offensive, and contemplate the invasion of a continent solidly organized by its German masters. * * * England has performed this feat before, but never alone; * * " Ibid. P. 101. "Before it (England) can receive much help from the local populations, it will have to win a spacious bridgehead against the most formidable German opposition. 228

"How great an army will be necessary? That is a question for soldiers, but any civilian can foresee some of the difficulties. England could not send her whole army, for she must keep at home a force sufficient to fend off renewed attempts at invasion. * * "I shrink from naming a figure, but any guess that I dare make is well above the total that England alone could furnish, even with the help of the Dominions." Ibid. Ps. 104-105. "* * Our population is too small; our wealth, deeply drained already, insufficient. Then, may we hope for the comradely aid, in men and money, of the United States? "Men? In 1940 both major political parties took their stand against the sending of men to Europe, and the President's message to Congress reinforced this view. I do not know how absolute and final such undertakings are. Men rarely intend in such matters to bind themselves under all circumstances and for all time; no statesman in this changing world ought to give an eternal pledge. In any case, Europeans have listened to these deliberations and negations from across the Atlantic with sinking hearts. * * * "A way out of this difficulty occurs to me. If America has forbidden the sending to Europe of drafted men, and also of enlisted men from the regular army, would it equally forbid the raising for this express purpose of an army of volunteers? In plain words, if there are young men who will freely offer themselves to fight the battle of civilization in Europe, would Congress remove any legal obstacles in their way? Would it go further, and bear the cost of their equipment, pay and maintenance? Would it permit officers and men of the regular army to join such a force? "* * An American volunteer army of half a million eager and resolute men, equipped with all that mechanized war demands, would turn the scales for victory and ward off for ever, by its achievements in Europe, the threat that darkens America's future. "On the question of money, I need make no express appeal. To escape slavery England is ready to face financial ruin. She will pour out what she has to free her neighbors and friends. But there are limits to her means, nor has she in her granaries an embarrassing surplus of food. She can do much, but she lacks the wealth to rearm a vanquished Europe and carry the need of all its stricken peoples upon her shoulders. But if Americans have settled in principle the main question of their duty in this struggle, they will give, as a grateful continent remembers that they gave before. (Uncle Shylock.) Ibid. Ps. 106-107-108-109. 229

"England is grateful for arms, grow thinner, it calls to American of volunteers. Above all, it prays a free continent a declaration of

but as its own ranks gallantry for an army that it may hear from war." Ibid. P. 130.

On October 6, 1940, C o l . Robert McCormick, editor and publisher of the Chicago Tribune, analyzed the cost of an American invasion of Europe. C o l . McCormick said: "Such an invasion would cost the United States at least 400 billion dollars, a million deaths, and several million ruined lives." SOME A M E R I C A N S SPEAK FOR A M E R I C A General Hugh Johnson, writing in the New York World Telegram during the debates on the Sol Bloom fake "Neutrality" (?) bill, said that the public utterances and actions of this administration at one time indicate involvement in war and another time assurance against it, adding: "They don't make sense when read together." "In 1937, the President wanted to join with the 'peaceloving nations' to 'quarantine the aggressors.' In April, 1939, he (Roosevelt) hinted that we couldn't stay out, and promptly approved a Washington Post editorial which so interpreted him and openly insisted that when he said at Warm Springs. 'If we don't have war * * ,' he meant, by 'we' to include this country." General Johnson points out that— " . . these open utterances tie in with others . . denied or not confirmed, like 'our frontier is in France' the public must take to mean that sooner or later we will have a stake in the outcome of Europe's troubles. The submarines reported (by the President in an interview) 'sighted' off the Pacific and North Atlantic Coasts and in the Caribbean and the subsequent prompt denial of harborage to subs. To these add holding up the Bremen, the close accord between Ambassadors Kennedy and Bullitt and the British and French Governments, the occasional revelations of secret military and naval missions, and finally the late, but open, admission of Administration Senators that lifting the arms embargo was not really intended as a neutrality move but as an effort to help England and France." "These hints do not gibe with assurances that we will stay out. Couple these inconsistencies with many other departures from announced policies and clever surprises by unsuspected legalistic curves and spit-balls, and it is not at all hard to understand the cry of 'ship trick.' " 230

General Johnson, again writing in the New York World Telegram, said: "We were sloganeered into the last war—at least as a partial cause. 'If England and France are licked our turn is next.' That one pulled heavily. 'This is a world war of democracy against autocracy. Our place is on the side of the democracies—they are fighting our war.' Boiled down to 'make the world safe for democracy,' that was a honey. "There is a good deal of doubt as to whether they were fighting our war, but there is none whatever that we fought theirs and did it in time to win it. Then we paid a lot for it. We asked for nothing and got considerably less than that. "About the only difference between the sloganeering approach in that war and this is that this time it is working three times as fast. " 'Fighting our war' was what Jimmy Cromwell said to Canada and, while he got an official spanking, no small part of the press on the Eastern Seaboard said he spoke the truth, or at least what most Americans think. "I doubt if he spoke the truth. West of the Alleghenies, at least, it has been my observation that most Americans think no such thing. 'Our turn w i l l be next' is a variation of the 'democracy' theme of 'fighting our war' but it packs more weight. It slants toward the strategy of 'self-defense' which is something most Americans would fight for if they thought the need existed. * * * "Whether this becomes a bloody war of movement or action or a white war of nerves and strangulation, neither side has much hope of coming out of it either with total victory or with enough strength left to tackle us in 20 years —especially not if we arm on the plan we have adopted. "It would be a lot safer, and cheaper for us in blood and money, to count on these things to avoid its being 'our turn next', than to keep repeating that we are sure it will be until we sloganeer ourselves into another terrible trimming, and make it our turn, not only next but now, by selfhypnosis." In articles appearing in the Baltimore Sun, H. L. Mencken states: " M y belief is that they are much nearer yielding at this minute than they were at the end of 1916, and that it would take only a week or two of intensive radio crooning to bring them over almost unanimously. A few die-hard pacifists might hold out, but surely not many. The overwhelming majority of publicists would trail with the mob, and in a brief space both the clergy and the laity among them would be howling for blood as fiercely as they howled in 1917. 231

"There is always, first, a period of preparation. * * * There must be a steady flow of alarms and a steady fanning of indignation. Evidence must be adduced, whether real or imaginary, (a) that the prospective enemy is of an incurably criminal and abandoned character, and (b) that in the face of American virtue and American valor he can be quickly and gloriously disposed of. "The Hon. Mr. Roosevelt has been engaged upon this double-headed enterprise ever since the current war began: indeed, he launched it so long ago as the time of his Chicago speech. The White House and the State Department, at this moment, are busy agencies of English propaganda, and so effective that the English have almost given up propaganda on their own. It would take only half a dozen fireside chats to finish the job. In a few short weeks the plain people would be convinced that Hitler was about to seize South America, blockade New York, and bomb Miami. A n d in another week or two Congress would be panicked into wiping out the English war debt and starting a new one." "When a Lindbergh rises up to speak a few words of common sense, he is treated as if he had proposed to burn the flag. The Chaldeans and the soothsayers have the right of way. * * * "Six successive nights of White House crooning will make them pant for Hitler's poisonous blood: indeed, it would take only seven or eight to make them pant for Churchill's. That crooning will be on us anon. beginning for the same at middle C. and running up gloriously to A above the clef. John T. Flynn, columnist, writes in the New Y o r k World Telegram: "Therefore this writer repeatedly predicted that at the first sign of real war in Europe there would be a tremendous drive for huge national-defense plans, which would be a perfect way to spend money and to borrow it because the conservatives, loudest in their attacks on spending and borrowing, would lead the pack for more spending and borrowing. "I also pointed out that there would be no way to draw the American people along into such a vast outlay of funds for national defense save by convincing them that they were about to be attacked, that they were in deadly peril of invasion, and to do this it would be necessary to carry on all sorts of propaganda based on the fear technique. I also called attention to the fact that since the day of the quarantine speech the President has persistently carried on this fear propaganda, and on several occasions I listed the dates and contents of these shots at the public fears. Now, of course, the frantic, panicky hysteria is in full flower. And some of those who started it are a little frightened by it." 232

* * it is difficult to argue with the man who yells for national defense, talks about the danger of invasion, sees planes swarming over our country from Greenland and Brazil and the West Indies, but, while talking that, is actually thinking about raising armaments to send to England and France. "If we are planning to send naval and air and munition aid to the Empire-allies, then we have to proceed along one course. If we are planning to protect ourselves in this hemisphere from a German invasion we have to follow a quite different course. "In one case we have to prepare for an aggressive war on foreign soil. In the other, we have to prepare for a war to defend our own shores. The American people are in sympathy with the Empires in this war, but they are over 90 per cent opposed to getting into the war in any way. "Those who are trying to lead the country into this war know that. They dare not come out and advocate joining this battle and building armaments for it. But behind the screen of protecting this continent they are attempting by war alarms and terrors to hurry the people into a swift, panicky program of preparation which will be preparation, not for what the people think, but for something quite different—something that they profoundly oppose. "The question then arises — are the people being honestly dealt with or are they being played upon? Are they being subtly drawn along upon a course which they oppose and is this being done by men who they now confidently believe are trying to keep them out of war instead of leading them into war? "There leaders are piling up a terrible responsibility for themselves before the bar of history when the whole truth is seen." Mencken also stated in the Baltimore Sun: " A n effort is being made to convince the country that the Archfiend Hitler, if, when and as he wrecks the stews of Paris and the prayer-cellars of Holy England, will fling his insatiable goons upon the United States and, as the Hon. M r . Roosevelt forecast in his radio croon of May 16, proceed to bomb Omaha. Second, it is taught officially that not only the United States but also all the other American countries are infested by hundreds of thousands of Nazi agents, who will leap out of hiding the instant Omaha is bombed, and blow up every bridge, airport, railway junction, orphan asylum, waterworks, hospital, Y . M . C . A . , radio croonery, and other public utility from Hudson Bay to Tierra del Fuego." "Both these propositions are heady stuff, and well calculated to alarm a moral and credulous people, but it must be manifest that the first is considerably less plausible than the 233

second. After all, it is hard to believe that Hitler, having been forced to seize Holland and Belgium in order to get near enough to tackle England, will be able to leap facilely to Omaha, or even to New York, which is exactly 192 times as far from his nearest flying-field as the English coast. Again, it is manifest to the meanest understanding that sending huge fleets of tanks into Holland, Belgium and France, which adjoin Germany as closely as Highlandtown adjoins Baltimore, is one thing, and sending the same tanks to the United States, which is more than 3,000 miles away, with a very deep ocean between, is quite another thing." "What really upsets the Hon. M r . Roosevelt and the rest of the Ersatz Englishmen is not the remote and infinitesimal possibility that Omaha may be bombed, but the high probability, amounting almost to certainty, that London will be bombed. In brief, they sweat for England first, leaving the United States for future consideration, and to that end, as everyone knows, they now rush to England the airships which, according to their own statement, the United States so desperately needs, leaving Omaha to its fate." Ludwell Denny says, in the Daily News: "What will happen if and when Paris falls and actual fighting is carried to England, is a matter of guess. Some of the President's supporters, who insist that this is 'our war,' predict that large-scale German bombing of England w i l l inflame American sentiment and force the G. O. P. campaigners to change." "Italy's anticipated entry into the war increases the demand for turning over to the Allies present U. S. Army and Navy planes and other equipment. " A l t h o the President has not yet officially proposed this, be is using Sen. Pepper and others to prepare Congress and the public mind. * * * "The President considers the Italian threat of the utmost gravity. Most of his war-time diplomacy and pressure have been designed to prevent this. His Friday defense message, asking a fourth billion dollars and warning that the war might spread to this continent, was intended to stop Mussolini * * *" " A l l of these grisly facts will be used by the Administration in its drive for increased American aid to the Allies, if Italy goes in. But the furnishing of United States military planes and equipment to the Allies is not so simple as the earlier steps taken. The difficulties are mechanical, military, diplomatic and political. "We have very few planes which would be of value to the Allies even if they could be delivered this week. The 234

exact number of our really 'modern' combat planes is a matter of dispute. "Maj. Gen. Arnold, Army Air Chief, testifies that the Army does not have a single plane in service embodying lessons of the European war, and less than half a dozen that could be modernized. Rear Admiral Towers, Naval A i r Chief, testified that the Navy has only 192 combat planes less than a year old. Maj. Al Williams, who has flown both the foreign and American planes, says we do not have more than one squadron in service able to fight the German planes. "One reason we lack new planes, of course, is that our own deliveries already have been deflected to the Allies. "On the military side, many officers and members of Congress say we are so short now that we cannot defend the vital Caribbean bases, and that we dare not let the Allies have our handful of good planes. "On the diplomatic side, the proposed step would constitute a virtual abandonment of our already thin 'neutrality' and make us in effect an 'ally,' even tho a non-belligerent. The repercussions of this, both during and after the war, would be widespread and incalculable. "Politically, this action would be interpreted by Roosevelt opponents as the final step short of war — leading to direct military involvement if the war runs long enough. As such it would precipitate, probably on the eve of the Republican convention, the major political battle between interventionists and anti-interventionists, which the President so far has avoided." In an editorial in an American newspaper of high standing it is said: "More than a few Americans are already saying that we must extend credit to the Allies after their gold is gone. Plenty of publicists and propagandists are already trying to condition the majority of our minds to accept such a proposition. "For our part, we're opposed to any such thing. We think the war will go on as long as there is the faintest hope that Uncle Sam will eventually finance a goodly part of it. We believe if that hope could be killed off the war would end soon." In no important aspect is the situation different to-day than it was during those days before the World War. If anything, the fever for war among the editors, teachers, preachers, bankers, lawyers and American society leaders'— especially in the East, is even hotter than it was then. Hitler, not the Kaiser, is the villain and the Allies are again fighting our war. The son of Congressman 235

Lindbergh argues against hysteria—which is good advice at all times —and is called unpatriotic. The politicians and Jewish press hasten to slander his name by calling him pro-German. General Hugh S. Johnson in the New York 'World-Telegram for M a y 23, 1940, exposed the prevailing deceptive propaganda as follows: "One principal reason why I came out here to St. Louis, the metropolis of the great valley, was to check up * * * on certain statements so frequently repeated in the East recently. One is that this great hinterland people, so short a time ago opposed to our taking any part in the war in Europe, have now changed their minds. Another is that the President's message on defense has so 'electrified' and 'unified' them for his foreign policies that an election this fall would be a mistake * * * . They want a third term for M r . Roosevelt as a measure of national preparedness. M r . Walter Lippman, Miss Dorothy Thompson and radio commentator H. V. Kaltenborn seem to have fallen for this line, or at least to have stressed various angles of the move to suppress our two-party system on a belief that what we need is unity. That is also the White House janissariat and third-termite line. It is at the bottom of the President's dramatic, but tricky, presentation of the preparedness bill * * *. " W e l l , it is my observation among this valley of my own beginnings that it is all a bunch of bunk. This Midwestern country no more approves the President's policy of sticking our necks out into the foreign embroglios of Europe and Asia than it ever did, and that was not at all. "It does approve the spending of whatever is necessary for American defense. It always did * * *. It is shocked to learn at so late a date that this administration, while spending so many billions for boondoggling and some useful works, has permitted us to remain so delinquent in defense that we have practically no armament against the dreadful weapons of modern war. * * * " M r . Roosevelt made an effective re-armament speech and got a lot of applause. But the facts are leaking out that he was making a virtue out of his own neglect and inaction in defense * * *. That speech * * * was pure third-term politics and had little to do with increased industrial defense production * *. This tragic failure is of a piece with its (the Administration's) unbroken record of failure in every major effort—industrial recovery, re-employment and agricultural 'parity.' It has had unprecedented powers. * * * It has succeeded with almost nothing. " T h i s is no record upon which to base a demand for re-election, the suppression of opposition and a coalition to support such invariable and dangerous errors. If anybody 236

believes that the burghers of the Middle West swallow this stuff, they must have been born east of the Hudson River." Washington Times-Herald, Sept. 20, 1940, also stated: " W i t h the possible exception of the (Boston Area). the (New York Area), has supplied a lower percentage of volunteers than any other of the nine corps areas since the army began its recruiting drive. Consequently, the New York area will have to furnish a higher percentage of draftees than any other area with the possible exception of Boston. "The joke on New York is made the more acid by the fact that New York is the interventionists' heaven. New York newspapers have been louder than any others in their demands for all aid to England short of war, and broader in their hints that we'd better actually declare war on Germany. Most of the movements like William Allen White's committee for helping the Allies head up in New York. * * * "For all this interventionist hoopla by influential New Yorkers, the humbler New Yorks have been evidently less anxious than the Atlantans, San Antonians and Ohioans to volunteer. * * * "But not only in New York but in the whole country volunteering is slow. This shows, we think, that the interventionist fervor which glows in the hearts of the powerful and middle-aged hasn't percolated down to the humble young Americans who would have to do the fighting." From several of his own supporters we have recently been told that the President, in effect, knew all along that this was to be another World War. W h y , then, if he knew this, did he not issue a call for increased armament funds for America before it started—or if not then —after it did start? Was such a failure the act of a peerless leader? Why did he not take the country into his confidence? Was he more interested in the defense of England and France than of America? At Chicago in October of 1937, nearly three years ago, he said if these aggressions and inhumanities increase, let no one imagine that America will escape, or that it may expect mercy, or that this Western Hemisphere will not be attacked. The noisy, torch-singing demagogue, Senator Pepper-pot, mouthpiece of Roosevelt, almost daily offers a resolution in Congress whereby the President would be authorized to sell at any price he sees fit all the munitions, airplanes and bombers our Army has for protection against Germany, Italy and Japan, who are supposed to be ready to unite in attacking America. Despite the opposition by a vote of 19 to 2 of the Senate Foreign 237

Relations Committee against the irrepressible Senator Pepper's resolution that would have deprived our Army and Navy " i n the great emergency that now confronts us" of its airplanes, bombers, rifles, field-guns, by a ruling of the acting Attorney General of the United States on June 5, 1940, at the request and with the approval of the President, a trick method was adopted to send what we have for our own defense to Great Britain. In an able editorial, recently published in the Patterson newspapers of New York and Washington, it was stated: "What worries us chiefly is that with this perhaps decisive battle of the war opening up, a vast clamor is being raised by United States interventionists for American help to the Allies of a kind which would cut down our own defense forces to the point of weakness, perhaps disaster." In the early part of June, 1940, the President decided to take away from our Army and Navy their best airplanes and bombers for shipment to England and France, with added war materials, arms and ammunition much needed by our Army and Navy. He announced that he had obtained an opinion from Francis Biddle, Acting Attorney General, determining that it was entirely legal to so do. M r . Biddle is a member of the well-known and wealthy Biddle family, at least six members of which family appeared upon the famous Philadelphia "sucker list" of the Workers' party, the "legal expression" in politics of the Communist party. One of our leading newspapers in a recent editorial stated in reference to this transaction: "Even with Congress in Washington, the executive branch has been putting some policies into effect without legislative concurrence. "The surprise arrangement by which Army and Navy planes were made available to the Allies, for instance, was accomplished by dusting off an old law permitting the Government to turn planes back to the factory as a sort of down payment on new models. The factory then, also acting legally, resells the planes to the Allies. "Maybe that was the wise thing to do. The only point made here is that it was done without the knowledge or consent of Congress—and while Congress was in session. Moreover, it was done at a time when Congress, after several days' urging, had failed to give its sanction to the Pepper resolution authorizing the Government to make direct sales of weapons to the Allies. One can't help wondering what things might be done with Congress gone home." 238


ENGLAND AND FRANCE DEMAND WE RE-ELECT ROOSEVELT "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens, the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake." President George Washington " W h o Shall Touch These Blind Eyes." President John Adams. Since tricking us into Europe's war in 1917, met with our hearty approval, is it surprising that England and France are sending again their titled diplomats, statesmen and politicians, their military and naval experts, their literary lights, their big industrialists, their Jewish international bankers and their secret service men to consult and confer with us, to praise us, to lecture us, to dine with us, with the unconcealed purpose of getting us to again fight their war? The Jewish controlled radio companies of America provide special accommodations for appeals to us by the King of England, Premiers Chamberlain and Churchill, Anthony Eden, Duff Cooper, L l o y d George, etc., and our Jewish controlled press publishes reverently word for word their utterances, and even pays for articles by some of them, etc. Lord Lothian, the British Ambassador, V o n Zeeland, former Premier of Belgium, Benes, former dictator of Czechoslovakia and close friend of Stalin, etc., are loaded down with degrees from swank Eastern universities, and are not merely permitted but begged to tell us it is our duty to die in Europe's wars. The British and French press have even ventured in the strongest terms to insist that it is the duty of the A m e r i c a n p u b l i c to reelect M r . R o o s e v e l t . A few of the m a n y available instances w i l l be given you.

Demaree Bess, in a recent article in the Saturday Evening Post, said: "As far as Europe is concerned, there is only one issue in the American presidential election this year, and that is the war issue. Europeans are amazed that so many Americans . . believe they have already settled this question; that the United States can and will remain neutral, and that domestic affairs, therefore, are more important than foreign policy in the coming campaigns." 239

That Britain and France want Roosevelt to be President for the third term is to be expected. According to their way of looking at him he alone of all Americans can lead us into Europe's battles. Bess continues: "Americans living in wartime England and France know that if these countries could name an American President, Mr. Roosevelt would be elected by acclamation. A l l i e d men and w o m e n echoed the w o r d s of one Communist Englishman w h o said to m e : 'It would be wonderful for us if Mr. Roosevelt received a third term.' H i s E u r o p e a n rooters have no particular interest in o u r President as a person. T h e y d o n ' t care about h i s views o n domestic questions. T h e y s i m p l y count u p o n h i m , more than u p o n any other A m e r i c a n , t o p r o m o t e the A n g l o F r e n c h cause i n the U n i t e d States."

Of this situation, Bess closes with sober words: " . . the stage seems to be set for a final struggle between those Americans who want to bring us into the Allied-German war and those Americans who want to keep us out. That struggle coincides with our presidential election, and seems likely to dominate it."

In an article appearing in the London Spectator, an outstanding and influential publication, of May 3, 1940, it is said about our neutrality, that it is a neutrality which is strained at all times in practical matters in England's favor, and to such an extent that some American writers are writing better propaganda on behalf of England and France, and American newspapers are printing better propaganda on behalf of England and France than their own writers. It continues: "It is the fault not of M r . Roosevelt but of the framers of the American Constitution in 1788 that 1940 happens to be a Presidential year and that the present President must eschew, so far as possible, any course which w i l l lose his party's votes next November". What this means is that Roosevelt, who is England's candidate for President of the United States, cannot afford to lose any votes for his re-election by a straight-out declaration of war until after the election, and that the framers of our Constitution were at fault in making this the year for a Presidential election, thereby delaying for a time Roosevelt's completion of his secret agreement with the English. Plainly the courageous and honest Americans who w i l l fight and pay for this war, if Roosevelt and his Jewish Anglo-French Bund succeed in their effort to force them to this bloody necessity, have been sold down the river by their elected leader and his chosen Janizaries. 240

We submit that this perilous program is the result of a specific plot, magnificently organized and paid for by your tax-monies and operated by Government machinery, run by your own elected and appointed administrators. That these individuals neither have the ability nor the wish to conduct American affairs in an American way and in the interest of the American people is an obvious fact. If we had any doubt of this before the latest and greatest World War broke out in the Fall of 1939, the conduct of these schemers and of the President since that time has settled it forever. When America was governed by Americans and for America, how different was the reception given to any interference or suggestion in relation to our policies—foreign or domestic. Genet, the French envoy, arrived in America in 1793 and proceeded at once to violate our neutrality, urged our people to pay no attention to its government, and treated President Washington with the utmost rudeness and discourtesy. He insisted that we engage in warfare against Britain on behalf of France. Washington said: "Is the minister of the French Republic to set the acts of this government at defiance with impunity? A n d then threaten the executive with an appeal to the people: What must the world think of such conduct, and of the government of the United States in submitting to it?" Bailey's History of the American People, p. 78. Washington's cabinet met and unanimously agreed that the recall of Genet should be demanded. In 1809, the British envoy, Francis James Jackson, arrived in the United States, proceeded to blackguard our President and people and to demand that we fight on behalf of Britain as against France, whereupon Madison's Secretary of State refused to receive him or any farther communications from him. Apparently these incidents taught France and Britain a lesson, for not until eighty years afterwards—in 1888—was any effort made to interfere in America's affairs. In that year Sir Lionel Sackville-West, the British Minister, wrote a naturalized citizen of English birth that his vote for Cleveland was a vote for England. Cleveland peremptorily dismissed Sackville-West. Europe stayed out of the affairs of America for twenty-six more years, viz. until 1914, when, having sounded out President Wilson, the Anglophiles, the press, pulpits and universities and found that their interference would be welcome, they sent a swarm of propagandists to inveigle us into the then World War. We received them with entertainment, flattery and adulation. 241


ROOSEVELT-WORLD JEWRY—ANGLOPHILES STARVATION OF FRIENDS THE FOUR HORSEMEN "For I was hungered, and ye gave Me no meat. I was thirsty and ye gave Me no drink." —Matthew 25:42. "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to M e . " Matthew 25:45. "Man's inhumanity to man Makes countless thousands mourn!" Robert Burns, a Scotchman. Meanwhile our Christian? Government unites with the BritishJewish Empire, in a plot to starve not merely German women and children (that has had our active support since the war started), but also the women and children of France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Hungary, Italy; in fact, all of Europe except Britain until, by provoked revolution, it is hoped general chaos w i l l come, Germany w i l l be destroyed, and the British-Jewish Empire once more put in control of Europe. The starvation of men, women and children has been the most approved English method of warfare since the Jews became dominant there—Ireland, China, India, the Boers, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy, and now France, Holland, Belgium, Norway and Spain. England and the Jews, with our help, in the name of civilization and Christianity, have illegally made food contraband against friendly peaceable nations and call it economic warfare— viz: Jewish warfare—the Four Horsemen. Bishops, Clergy, Presidents of Eastern Colleges, Anglophiles, Jew and an attorney close to Morgan & Co. recently joined in an appeal to continue an embargo on food for France, Norway, Poland, Belgium, Holland and Denmark. They said "The United States must be as hard as Great Britain is hard" and that the American people should have no part "in the scheme" to feed the women and children of these countries. They appealed to the American public to harden its heart against the movement, led by ex-President Hoover, based upon the plan issued by officers of organizations for relief in Norway, 242

Holland, Belgium and Poland—not for the Germans—which stated among other things: " T h e shortage affects the c h i l d r e n the worst. T h e y must have fats a n d m i l k ; otherwise they become stunted or die w h o l e sale. * * * " W e can say f l a t l y that there i s n o source o f s u p p l y i n E u r o p e f r o m w h i c h these occupied nations can adequately prevent famine d u r i n g the f o r t h c o m i n g w i n t e r , a n d if there is not to be starvation a n d disease on a wholesale scale, it must be prevented by overseas supplies t h r o u g h the B r i t i s h b l o c k a d e . "

In an article by the President's cousin, Joseph Alsop, and Robert Kintner, on September 19, 1940, it was said: " W h e n the n e w F r e n c h A m b a s s a d o r , G a s t o n H e n r y H a y e , recently a r r i v e d here, there were credited reports that the V i c h y g o v e r n m e n t w o u l d ask f o r f o o d f r o m t h i s c o u n t r y f o r s t r i c k e n free F r a n c e . * * t h a t h i s g o v e r n m e n t w o u l d l i k e t o discuss w i t h the State D e p a r t m e n t a n d the R e d C r o s s the p l i g h t o f the sick a n d the c h i l d r e n o f free F r a n c e . And he is said to have suggested the pressing d e m a n d s f o r c o n densed m i l k , m e d i c a l supplies a n d some c l o t h i n g — the t o u g h e r a t t i t u d e o f the B r i t i s h o n the b l o c k a d e . — the e n o r m o u s F r e n c h assets i n t h i s c o u n t r y t h a t the T r e a s u r y has f r o z e n . W h i l e the fact i s n o t g e n e r a l l y k n o w n , i t i s reported t h a t F r e n c h assets here t o t a l a b o u t $ 1 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . * * A n idea o f the strict w a t c h w h i c h ( J e w ) M o r g e n t h a u a n d the T r e a s u r y are k e e p i n g o n t h i s huge p i l e o f w e a l t h can be gleaned f r o m the attitude t o w a r d the expenses of the F r e n c h E m b a s s y here. * * M o r g e n t h a u w a s agreeable to releasing some funds, b u t h e requested a b u d g e t o f the E m bassy's expenses. A f t e r t h i s w a s presented, h e freed o n l y e n o u g h m o n e y f o r t w o m o n t h s ' o p e r a t i o n , w i t h 1 0 per cent a d d e d as a g o o d - w i l l p a y m e n t . "

Major George Fielding Eliot, self-styled military expert, educated in Australia and first a soldier in the British Army, in an article in the Anglophile, war-mongering, pro-Jew New York Herald-Tribune, September 25, 1940, said: " T h e people of the U n i t e d States are about to be faced w i t h a g r i m , indeed a terrible, p r o b l e m . It is a p r o b l e m in whose decision their hearts w i l l i n c l i n e them i n one way, their heads— it is to be hoped—in the other. Sentiment, the feelings of h u m a n i t y , the natural w e l l s p r i n g s of h u m a n kindness, even the sacred name o f C h r i s t i a n charity, w i l l be called u p o n by those w h o w i l l urge u s t o the one course; against w h i c h w e s h a l l have to remember w h o the D e v i l it is that can quote Scripture to his purpose.


"We are, as famine gnaws deeper into the vitals of the conquered nations of Europe with the approach of winter, going to be asked to feed their suffering peoples. We shall be told, and rightly, that these are the innocent, that they have done nothing to bring upon themselves the fate that has befallen them; and we shall be besought with the invocation of all those urgings of generosity which have always made so great an appeal to American hearts, to succor these starving peoples of Norway, of the Netherlands, of Belgium, of France, and, perhaps, of other lands. " T h i s appeal, however persuasively presented, however h i g h l y sponsored, we must in our own higher interests, in the interests o f o u r o w n country a n d o u r A m e r i c a n w a y o f life, steel our hearts to resist. "We are at this moment doing all we can to aid Great Britain in her struggle w i t h a G e r m a n y w h i c h has conquered a l l o r g a n i z e d resistance on the continent of E u r o p e . * * that this blockade, resting on B r i t i s h seapower, is i n d e e d the chief weapon w i t h which B r i t a i n is fighting Germany."

Major Eliot, pro-English, pro-Jew, pro-War, in his crusade for chaos and the starvation, disease and death of our traditional friends on the continent of Europe, thus brazenly tells us that anyone who suggests the application here of the greatest of virtues—Christian charity and humanity—would be in the service of the Devil. And so the Administration, World Jewry and the Anglophiles illegally take and hold billions of the French money banked and entrusted to our Government, and refuse the woman and children of France food, clothing and medicine to prevent death by starvation and disease, in order to help England, and our good people approve—Lafayette we are here. In a very startling article written by a political editor, Frank Waldrop, on October 11, 1940, headed " W h y Do We Help Starve Finland?", Waldrop said: " A n d on through the winter, the enthusiasm grew. Finland fought grimly and well in the frozen North (against the bloody Soviet), and all the United States poured out millions to help. It was a noble gesture, well meant and deeply appreciated. "Have you ever wondered whether that help ever got to Finland? "This is to tell you the sad news. "In warehouses at New York City right this instant are stacked bales and bolts of bandages, medical supplies, food, clothes, X-ray machines, vitamin extracts, cotton, wool, 244

layettes for babies, splints and shoelaces furnished by the Red Cross and other agencies, long since earmarked for Finland. "They have never been moved though Finnish ships are waiting and ready to take them, the Red Cross has marked them as disposed of, * * "In Finland now those things are needed even more desperately than when they were given. It is cold in Helsinki, now, and the cold stars glitter down on people who have been living on just potatoes since May, who have not accumulated any fat against the frost, who haven't those fine sheepskin coats they had this time a year ago, who even have not yet got back the window panes that went flying when Molotov's breadbaskets came tumbling down out of the gray winter skies last January. * * "The combined efforts of the U. S. State Department and the government of Great Britain are all that prevent them from doing so. * * "Finland is still a nation of integrity and character. * * A n d Finland has certified it needs desperately those supplies in New York. It promises not to surrender them to anybody. * * "Is this to be remembered in history as what American admiration for Finland had fallen to one year after all the cheering?" Roosevelt, the Jews and the British-Jewish Empire are again courting bloody Stalin, who wants all of Finland, and we are uniting with England and the Soviet to starve and freeze the Finns to death. In the Times-Herald of October 16, 1940, it is stated: "Soviet to Get Needed Tools From U. S. F. D., Wooing Stalin From Axis, Calls Russia 'Friendly' "President Roosevelt yesterday made an important and specific gesture of friendship toward Russia. Going out of his way to characterize the Soviet as 'a friendly power,' M r . Roosevelt announced the Russians now will receive all of their orders for machine tools and machinery, except for such items as Army and Navy experts decide are vitally needed by U. S. defense industries. * * a major diplomatic triumph for Ambassador Constantine Oumansky, * * At the same time, yesterday's compromise represents an advance in the present British-American campaign to woo Stalin from the axis powers * *" In the Times-Herald of December 12, 1940, an article was published by an American writer of mixed Norwegian and Irish descent. 245

who had been in Norway after its invasion, which said: "Unless the British allow food relief to reach Norway this winter, it is possible virtually the entire population of 2,500,000 may be exterminated by spring. * * * "the 1,000,000 Americans of Norwegian descent gladly would furnish food through the relief organization headed by former President Herbert Hoover, if the British would lift the blockade for that purpose." In "Pilgrims Way", a charming book written by a Scotchman, John Buchan, Lord Tweedsmuir, recently Governor-General of Canada, he tells how, in his youth, brooding over Scotch history, had made him an intense Scotch patriot. He stated: (P. 39) "Against our little land there had always stood England vast, menacing and cruel. We resented the doings of Edward I —Henry V I I I and Elizabeth as personal wrongs. The Brutalities of Cumberland after forty-five seemed to us unforgivable outrages which had happened yesterday." John Buchan was a member of Parliament, Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church (Presbyterian) of Scotland. This Cumberland was known as the Butcher Duke and was a son of King George II. He gained his name by his ferocity and hangings of Scotchmen after 1745, and many of our bravest revolutionary soldiers from North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania had fled from Scotland owing to the brutalities of the English. I am told that the people of Scotland, where there are fewer Jewish magnates than in London, while loyal to the British Empire, were less desirous of fighting for World Jewry than were the English. Lloyd George, former Premier of England, in an article on the bombing of cities and towns, published in the American papers on September 22, 1940, stated: "I do not believe either side is achieving any serious military objective by the devastation which is necessarily wrought on both sides. * * "Unhappily it is inevitable that men, women and children who are either Dutch, Norwegian, Belgian, or French and have their abode in these ports should in the course of these activities be killed or injured." In an article in the American newspapers of October 6, 1940, L l o y d George, former Premier of England, later said: "Norway was another major blunder in strategy. We succeeded in antagonizing every party in a most friendly country by invading her territorial waters without consent 246

or warning, and thereby we made easy the occupation of Norway by Germany." This is an admission by a former Premier of England, that England had blundered in invading the territorial waters of Norway without Norwegian consent and without warning to her, thereby giving the Germans an excuse for subsequently invading and occupying Norway. Somebody in Norway gave the English a wink and a nod before they invaded the territorial waters of Norway. Carl J. Hambro was at that time President of the Norwegian Storting (Parliament). A large international banking house of London is owned by the Hambro family and one of its members, Charles J. Hambro, is a director in the Bank of England. Carl J. Hambro, like Baron Rothschild of France and many Jewish refugees, is now in America, well heeled with this world's goods, and is being toasted and feted by the Administration and the other interventionists. We have not heard that Hambro is making any effort to relieve the starvation of those Norwegians who were without sufficient money or influence to flee from Norway, or that he disapproves of our selling bombers to England, with which, as Lloyd George, former Premier of England, says: "It is inevitable that Norwegian men, women and children * * w i l l be killed or injured". Our Jews, humanitarians and some so-called Christians are advocating the sale of more and more bombers to England, with which, as Lloyd George says, it is inevitable that Dutch, Norwegian, Belgian, and French friends—men, women and children, will be killed or injured in their homes; that means the men, women and children, who have not had the money and influence to arrive in America with gold and diamonds. The press, radio and President are thus urging us to aid, quickly and efficiently, in the barbarous slaughter of innocents—our traditional friends—Lafayette we are here. " O h God! that bread should be so dear A n d flesh and blood so cheap." Thomas Hood.



WAR HYSTERIA PROPAGANDA EXPOSED "Real Patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests." Washington's Farewell Address. Wars are the Jews' Harvests. Werner Sombart, a Jew. Raymond Clapper, columnist, writing for the Scripps-Howard papers, on May 16, 1940, states in reference to the recent report of the Senate Naval Affairs Committee, of whom the majority are Democratic Senators: " T h e r e is a current r i s i n g hysteria in this country, s p r o u t i n g f r o m the idea that we o u g h t to enter the w a r as a preventive measure to k i l l off the danger o f later i n v a s i o n o f the W e s t e r n H e m i s p h e r e . R a r e l y is the p r o p o s i t i o n stated so b a l d l y , but that is the thought b e h i n d a g o o d many w o r d s that are b e i n g uttered today. " T h a t v i e w p o i n t , w h i c h i s s t e a d i l y g a i n i n g g r o u n d because o f the i m p o r t a n c e o f s o m e w h o h o l d i t , n o w f i n d s its thesis s h a r p l y o p p o s e d b y the Senate N a v a l A f f a i r s C o m m i t tee in a m o s t significant r e p o r t w h i c h a d v o c a t e d a d d i t i o n s to the N a v y . Because i t i s the voice o f the Senate N a v a l A f f a i r s C o m m i t t e e , t h i s r e p o r t i s b o u n d t o become a t e x t b o o k for those w h o believe the A d m i n i s t r a t i o n i s m o v i n g t o w a r d deeper i n v o l v e m e n t in E u r o p e . * * * " I n effect the committee stands on hemisphere defense. It states that some of o u r best i n f o r m e d n a v a l experts are of the o p i n i o n that the U n i t e d States s h o u l d not participate i n the E u r o p e a n w a r under any circumstances n o w conceivable, and that U n i t e d States soldiers s h o u l d never a g a i n be l a n d e d on a f o r e i g n continent. " T h e Senate N a v a l A f f a i r s C o m m i t t e e says we are not prepared to participate in the E u r o p e a n w a r , that we do not possess the necessary weapons, a n d that we s h o u l d not consider our n a v a l needs w i t h any such object i n v i e w . W e s h o u l d , the committee says, profit b y the experience o f the last W o r l d W a r a n d a v o i d b e c o m i n g too greatly i n v o l v e d i n E u r o p e a n affairs. T h e committee said that if we are to r e m a i n at peace, we must a v o i d b e c o m i n g interested f i n a n c i a l l y i n the outcome o f the


E u r o p e a n war, a n d o u r industries must not become too greatly c o m p r o m i s e d by f o r e i g n w a r orders. T h a t is a statement w h i c h seems to have come a l i t t l e late, since A m e r i c a n industry, part i c u l a r l y a v i a t i o n , already is deeply i n v o l v e d . * * * " T h e n a v a l c o m m i t t e e report i s based u p o n the a r g u m e n t t h a t adequate n a v a l p o w e r , s u p p l e m e n t e d b y a i r s t r e n g t h a n d a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l A r m y , gives u s c o m p l e t e p r o t e c t i o n . " T h e r e p o r t goes i n t o some d e t a i l t o m a k e the p o i n t t h a t i f G e r m a n y c a n , b y a i r a n d s u b m a r i n e , subdue B r i t a i n ' s vast n a v a l force a r o u n d the B r i t i s h Isles, the same fate w o u l d b e i n store f o r a n y n a v a l force w e w o u l d send over. O n the o t h e r h a n d , o u r N a v y , o p e r a t i n g a t h o m e , a n d protected b y a i r s t r e n g t h , i s i m m u n e t o a n y t h i n g except a s u p e r i o r battle fleet. " A s to J a p a n , the committee states b a l d l y that at the present time the U . S . N a v y c o u l d not undertake a w a r i n far eastern waters. We s h o u l d have to increase o u r fleet perhaps 100 per cent, a n d b u i l d a n i m p r e g n a b l e n a v a l base i n the P h i l i p p i n e s . Says the committee: 'The cost to us of such a w a r w o u l d be so great that we must, by every means in o u r power, a v o i d the necessity of h a v i n g to undertake it.' "

RECENT REPORT OF SENATE N A V A L COMMITTEE This remarkable report, coming unanimously in May, 1940 from the Senate Naval Affairs Committee, should be read, at this time, by every American who has the interest of his own country first at heart. So little publicity was given to it by the Jewish controlled newspapers and radio that it might almost be said to have been suppressed. It states: "Why should we go to war to defend freedom, if we must begin by destroying it with our own hands? We need not do this. The cold, hard military fact is this: Our Navy, if adequate, supplemented by a highly efficient Army and air force, will be so effective that few nations, not excluding victorious totalitarian nations, will challenge its power; and if any does we shall be the deliverer and not the recipient of the terrible hammer strokes of war. "The naval, military, and air forces necessary to prevent any foreign nation or group of nations from challenging us in our part of the world are well within the power of this Nation to create and maintain without regimenting all our vast resources under a single control, without wiping out our democracy, and without abandoning our American ways of life and free government. " I f w e realize that the i m p o r t a n t causes o f w a r are i n h u m a n m i n d s a n d emotions; that force cannot change m a t e r i a l l y h u m a n n a t u r e ; give up the illusion that American armed force can bring permanent peace to a warring world and confine our military


objectives to the defense of this country, we shall find that our problem of national defense becomes relatively simple. An impregnable defense for America will be costly, but infinitely less costly in the long run than engaging in another futile attempt to 'save the world for democracy' and certainly less costly than conquest and consequent confiscation of resources and enslavement of all our people. It is believed that the American people are ready and willing to make any sacrifices necessary to protect their birthright and their liberties, but that they are not willing to endure the horrors of war to take part in the age-old quarrels of Europe and the game of power politics. * * * " N o attack o f a serious nature can b e m a d e u p o n o u r c o u n t r y , unless a n e n e m y secures c o m m a n d o f t h e waters w h i c h w a s h o u r shores t o s u c h a n e x t e n t t h a t h e c a n b r i n g t r o o p s o r aircraft w i t h i n s t r i k i n g distance f o r assault, o r u n less h i s b l o c k a d i n g forces c a n operate effectively against o u r v i t a l trade routes t o the c o u n t r i e s b o r d e r i n g u p o n the C a r i b bean Sea t o S o u t h A m e r i c a n c o u n t r i e s a n d t o H a w a i i a n d Alaska. " S o l o n g a s o u r N a t i o n possesses a n adequate fleet, a n adequate a i r force, a n d the necessary n u m b e r of secure bases f r o m w h i c h these forces m a y operate effectively, there i s l i t t l e chance o f a successful attack u p o n us. O u r fleet, i n c l u d i n g the fleet air force, h o w e v e r , m u s t be k e p t c o n c e n t r a t e d , a n d m u s t b e s u p e r i o r i n f i g h t i n g p o w e r t o a n y fleet o r c o m b i n a t i o n o f fleets w h i c h can be b r o u g h t against us. * * *" "We alone, of all great peoples, are so fortunately situated that we can remain at peace and be secure in our homes and our means of livelihood. "In




'Why forego the Why quit our own by interweaving our entangle our peace ambition, rivalship,



advantages of so peculiar a situation? to stand upon foreign ground? Why, destiny with that of any part of Europe, and prosperity in the toils of European interest, humor, or caprice?'

"Why not take advantage of our peculiar situation, develop the sources of raw materials available in this hemisphere and construct the instrumentalities of war which will enable us to pursue our way in peace, free from the horrors of invasion, the perils of bombs from the sky above us, the burdens of supporting vast armies, and the perils to our liberties which any involvement in war would bring? " T h e c o m m i t t e e ' s a t t e n t i o n has been directed t o a r t i cles a n d items w h i c h have appeared i n the p u b l i c press allegi n g t h a t m i l i t a r y a n d n a v a l experts are o f the o p i n i o n that i t is i n e v i t a b l e t h a t the U n i t e d States w i l l become i n v o l v e d i n the E u r o p e a n w a r a n d t h a t the U n i t e d States s h o u l d take a n active m i l i t a r y p a r t i n the w a r . "


"The committee can state that some of our best informed naval experts are of the opinion that the United States should not participate in the present European war under any circumstances now conceivable and that United States soldiers should never again be landed on a foreign continent. None of the naval experts or civilian witnesses who appeared before the committee recommended that this country participate actively in the present European war. Privately some military and naval officers may believe that we should enter the war, but they have not so recommended publicly to the committee. *





The Senate Naval Affairs Committee in May, 1940 reached the following conclusions, among others: "The United States at the present time is not vulnerable to direct attack by any means whatsoever save those with which a thoroughly modern navy and air force can deal adequately. " A i r power, due to its limited radius of action, has not yet changed the fact that in a military sense we are an insular nation and that we are not vulnerable to direct attack if we prevent the establishment of air bases in this hemisphere. "Military power can always be exercised more efficiently and to much greater effect within a reasonable radius of action than it can by fighting thousands of miles away. "We are more fortunately situated than any other peoples. We should take advantage of our fortunate situation and avoid entangling our peace and prosperity in the quarrels of Europe or Asia. "We should make every effort to preserve peace in the Far East. We can, if we have to, defeat Japan, but the effort required would be enormous. At the present time, due to lack of United States naval bases in this area, a war in the Far East could be undertaken only in conjunction with Great Britain, France, and Holland. " N o circumstances were presented to the committee which would indicate the necessity for United States naval forces being sent to operate in European waters or United States air forces being sent to operate from bases in Europe. Our naval forces should not be subjected to the hazards of European shore-based aircraft and small submarines. Our naval and air forces should be preserved for our own defense if and when needed. "We should face the basic military and economic facts that we do not have the power or the means to police the world; that we cannot bring peace to a warring world, 251

but that we do have the power and the means to prevent others from transporting their wars to this hemisphere.

The Senate Naval Committee recommended that — "Thoughtful consideration be given its conclusions that the best interests of our country will be served if we remain at peace; that we very probably can remain at peace, be free from the horrors of war, the fear of invasion, the crushing burdens of vast armies, the fear of bombs from the sky above us, and be able to work out our own domestic problems in a sensible American way; and that should any unscrupulous aggressor attack us, we will be able to meet and defeat him quickly and decisively far from our homes and our firesides, if we provide ourselves with ample sea and air power to command the seas which wash our own shores and the sea approaches to the Panama Canal and the Caribbean Sea." See

Report of the Senate Committee on N o . 1 6 1 5 , 7 6 t h C o n g r e s s , 3 d Session.



In one of the ablest and most patriotic editorials ever written it was stated, in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, on September 3, 1940: "DICTATOR ROOSEVELT COMMITS AN ACT OF WAR " M r . Roosevelt today committed an act of war. "He also became America's first dictator. "Secretly, his Secretary of State, M r . H u l l , entered into an agreement with the British Ambassador that amounts to a military and naval alliance with Great Britain. This secretly negotiated agreement was consummated yesterday, Sept. 2. "Today Congress is informed of the agreement. Note well the word 'informed.' Although the President referred to his under-cover deal as ranking in importance with the Louisiana Purchase, he is not asking Congress—the elected representatives of the people—to ratify this deal. He is telling them it already has been ratified by him—America's dictator. "The President has passed down an edict that compares with the edicts forced down the throats of Germans, Italians and Russians by Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. "He hands down an edict that may eventually result in the shedding of the blood of millions of Americans; that may result in transforming the United States into a goose-stepping, regimented slave state.

"Under our Constitution, treaties with foreign powers are not legal without the advice and consent of the Senate. 252

This treaty, which history may define as the most momentous one ever made in our history, was put over without asking the Senate either for its advice or its consent." "The authority which the President quotes for his fatal and secret deal is an opinion from the Attorney-General. Whatever legal trickery this yes-man may conjure up, the fact is that the transfer of the destroyers is not only in violation of American law, but is also in violation of the Hague Covenant of 1907, solemnly ratified by the United States Senate in 1908. It is an outright act of war. "Undeterred by law or the most primitive form of common sense, the President is turning over to a warring power a goodly portion of the United States Navy, against the repeated statements of Senators, Navy Department officials and officers of the Navy that the ships are needed for our own defense. * * * "But, in doing so, he commits an act of war. He strips our navy of fifty valuable ships and he enters into leases which might not be worth the paper they are written upon in a month's time. " A n d all this is done in utmost contempt of democratic processes and of the Constitution of the United States. "If this secretly negotiated deal goes through, the fat is in the fire and we all may as well get ready for a full-dress participation in the European war. "If Roosevelt gets away with this, we may as well say good-by to our liberties and make up our mind that henceforth we live under a dictatorship. "If Congress and the people do not rise in solemn wrath to stop Roosevelt now—at this moment—then the country deserves the stupendous tragedy that looms right around the corner."

Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh, that fine, honest, able and patriotic young American, a recognized authority throughout the world on aviation and defense by air, in a recent address stated: " I n times o f w a r a n d c o n f u s i o n , i t i s essential f o r o u r p e o p l e t o h a v e a clear u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the elements u p o n w h i c h o u r n a t i o n a l safety depends. * * * " J u d g e d b y a e r o n a u t i c a l s t a n d a r d s , w e i n the U n i t e d States are in s i n g u l a r l y f o r t u n a t e p o s i t i o n . * * * " F r o m the s t a n d p o i n t o f defense, w e w i l l s t i l l have t w o great oceans b e t w e e n u s a n d the w a r r i n g armies o f E u r o p e a n d A s i a . I n fact, there i s h a r d l y a n a t u r a l element c o n t r i b u t i n g to air strength a n d i m p r e g n a b i l i t y that we do not n o w possess. A v i a t i o n i s f o r u s a n asset. I t adds t o o u r n a t i o n a l safety. W i t h a f i r m a n d clear cut p o l i c y w e c a n


build an air defense for America that will stand above these shifting sands of war. * * * "Let us not be confused by this talk of invasion by European aircraft. The air defense of America is as simple as the attack is difficult when the true facts are faced. We are in danger of war not because European people have attempted to interfere with the internal affairs of America, but because American people have attempted to interfere with the internal affairs of Europe. "A foreign power could not conquer us by dropping bombs in this country unless the bombing were accompanied by an invading army. A n d an invading army requires thousands of small bombers and pursuit planes. It would have little use for huge transatlantic aircraft. " N o , the advantage lies with us, for great armies must still cross oceans by ship. Only relatively small forces can be transported by air today, and over distances of a few hundred miles at most. This has great significance in Europe, but it is not an element that we have to contend with in America. Such a danger can come, in any predictable future, only through division and war among our own peoples. " A s long as American nations work together, as long as we maintain reasonable defense forces, there will be no invasion by foreign aircraft. A n d no foreign navy will dare to approach within bombing range of our coasts. "Our danger in America is an internal danger. We need not fear a foreign invasion unless American peoples bring it on through their own quarreling and meddling with affairs abroad. Our eyes should not search beyond the horizon for problems which lie at our feet. * * * "The greatest inheritance we can pass on to our children is a reasonable solution of the problems that confront us in our time—a strong nation, a lack of debt, a solid American character free from the entanglements of the Old World. Let us guard America today as our forefathers guarded it in the past. They won this country from Europe with a handful of Revolutionary soldiers. We certainly can hold it now with a population of 130,000,000 people. If we cannot, we are unworthy to have it. "But the course we have been following in recent months leads to neither strength nor friendship nor peace. It will leave us hated by victor and vanquished alike, regardless of which way the tide of battle turns. One side will claim that we aided its enemies; the other, that we did not help enough." Lindbergh continues: "Let us turn again to America's traditional role — that of building and guarding our own destiny. We need a 254

greater a i r force, a greater A r m y , and a greater N a v y ; t h e y have been inadequate f o r m a n y years. L e t u s f o r m w i t h o u r n e i g h b o r i n g n a t i o n s a clear-cut a n d definite p o l i c y o f A m e r i can defense. But above all, let us stop this hysterical chatter of calamity and invasion that has been running rife these last few days. It is not befitting to the people who built this nation. " T h a t the w o r l d i s f a c i n g a n e w era i s b e y o n d q u e s t i o n . O u r m i s s i o n i s t o m a k e i t a better era. B u t regardless o f w h i c h side w i n s t h i s w a r , there i s n o reason, aside f r o m o u r o w n a c t i o n s , t o prevent a c o n t i n u a t i o n o f peaceful r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n A m e r i c a a n d the c o u n t r i e s o f E u r o p e . I f w e desire peace, we need only stop asking for war. No one wishes to attack us, and no one is in a position to do so. "The only reason that we are in danger of becoming involved in this war is because there are powerful elements in America who desire us to take part. They represent a small minority of the American people, but they control much of the machinery of influence and propaganda. They seize every opportunity to push us closer to the edge. "It is time for the underlying character of this country to rise and assert itself, to strike down these elements of personal profit and foreign interests. This underlying character of America is our true defense. Until it awakes and takes the reins in hand once more, the production of airplanes, cannon and battleships is of secondary importance. "Let us turn our eyes to our own nation. We cannot aid others until we have first placed our own country in a position of spiritual and material leadership and strength."

Senator David I. Walsh, Chairman of the Senate Naval Committee, stated in the Senate on June 4, 1940, that the round-trip limit of modern bombers was 1,000 miles, and added "that C o l . Charles A. Lindbergh, in his recent broadcast, 'expressed a military point of view exactly in accord with the army and navy that it is impossible for this country to be invaded from the air.' " Major Al Williams, noted aviation expert, formerly a Navy speed pilot and now an able writer and Reserve Officer in the Marine Corps, recently stated at a meeting of the National Aviation Forum: that "panic first, then war", was Roosevelt's policy, and that: " * * America was in no danger of invasion by air or sea, t h a t the P r e s i d e n t ' s speeches have been ' p a n i c - c r e a t i n g , ' a n d s t r o n g l y i n t i m a t e d the P r e s i d e n t ' s p l a n f o r 5 0 , 0 0 0 s h i p s w a s not actually for home defense but to hand over to the Allies." " T h e y (the A l l i e s ) want o u r airplanes * * * and they want those planes right n o w . And Mr. Roosevelt wants to give them airplanes right now without first providing an American air


force organization for the permanent T h e airplanes are for E u r o p e . " " T h e President wants airplanes in war. If he wants them—and without d u c t i o n of planes America.





k n o w s a l l this—but I fear that the President great numbers r i g h t n o w — t o toss i n t o this thousands of planes as s o o n as he can get w a i t i n g t o b u i l d a n a i r force f i r s t — t h e n profor E u r o p e is his g o a l — n o t the defense of

"The Administration for five years * * * has persistently meddled in international power politics and at the same time, failed to provide an adequate national defense system for this country."

In a United Press dispatch of October 1, 1940, A l f Mossman Landon is quoted as saying: "According to distinguished Democratic Members of Congress, the President has already asked Congress to do everything but declare war and do everything that was ever done by any government in any way at any time. Senator George, (Democrat) of Georgia, said, hardly 30 days ago: 'Do not deceive yourselves, gentlemen; do not try to deceive the American people. They will know that you are not preparing for peace, for national defense, but that you are preparing for war." William Henry Chamberlin, distinguished author, editor, and since 1922 correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor in Europe and Asia, has within the last few days published, through the MacMillan Company, one of the most remarkable books on Europe and Asia that has come to our attention. Chamberlin is and has remained a true American, liberal, scholarly and objective in his viewpoint. He writes: "I was profoundly skeptical as to the feasibility of all far-reaching schemes of so-called collective security. It seemed to me that one could not expect equality of obligations when there was no equality of risk. In other words a country which was not itself exposed to attack could not reasonably be expected to come to the aid of some other power which lay in the pathway of danger, more particularly if this other power had provoked or aggravated the danger by its own policy. To put it still more bluntly and specifically, in the light of contemporary issues, I should consider it criminal folly to conscript Americans and send them to fight overseas because France and England had gone to war not to defend their own frontiers but to support an extremely brittle ally in Eastern Europe." The Confessions of an Individualist. p. 246-247. 256

" * * I was implacably opposed to 'preventive' wars, undertaken for the purpose of defeating a power that might or might not be an enemy at some future time. Such wars seemed to me about as sensible as jumping off a cliff because of the fear that some day one might be attacked by cancer." Ibid. p. 247. " * * And I can conceive of nothing more disgustingly immoral than the statesman or legislator who sends others to die for a cause in which he does not believe sufficiently to be willing to risk his own life." I b i d . p. 2 4 8 - 2 4 9 . " * * n o t h i n g shocked me so p r o f o u n d l y as the B r i t i s h u n c o n d i t i o n a l guaranty to P o l a n d . T h e n for the first time I became c o n v i n c e d that w a r o f the worst k i n d was inevitable i n E u r o p e — a w a r in w h i c h the democracies a n d the fascist powers w o u l d wage a struggle of m u t u a l exhaustion a n d near exterm i n a t i o n , a l l for the ultimate benefit o f the d e l i g h t e d A s i a t i c i n the K r e m l i n , w h o w o u l d b e ready a t the end o f the slaughter t o step i n a n d promote the social r e v o l u t i o n w h i c h w o u l d destroy w h a t l i t t l e c i v i l i z a t i o n the w a r h a d left." I b i d . p. 254. " A s f o r the m o r a l side of the question, I considered that there is no h i g h e r m o r a l responsibility f o r a government t h a n t o keep i t s people out o f unnecessary wars. A n d m y d e f i n i t i o n of an unnecessary w a r , f o r the U n i t e d States, is one u n p r o v o k e d by h o s t i l e aggression against the A m e r i c a n continent." Ibid. p. 258. "If only America will have the common sense and self-restraint not to yield to foreign-inspired propaganda, not to waste the lives and substance of its people in fighting foreign quarrels, the future of the civilization which will inevitably move to its decline and fall if Europe persists in tearing itself to pieces, will belong to the western side of the Atlantic." I b i d . p. 2 6 1 . " * * A n d , thanks primarily to the n e o - N a p o l e o n i c ambitions of H i t l e r , secondarily to a F r e n c h a n d B r i t i s h guaranty w h i c h neither country was in a g e o g r a p h i c a l position to i m p l e m e n t , E u r o p e , for the second time w i t h i n a generation, faced the g r i m prospect o f w a r t o a n end that w o u l d certainly b e bitter, i f there was a n e n d a t a l l : m i l l i o n s o f m e n s t r u g g l i n g and d y i n g f o r m i c r o s c o p i c bits o f s o i l i n the b l o o d a n d s l i m e o f the trenches; s l o w starvation o f G e r m a n w o m e n a n d c h i l d r e n t h r o u g h b l o c k ade matched against a G e r m a n effort to starve E n g l a n d by means o f its submarine blockade, w i t h a l l its attendant h o r r o r s o f death a t sea." I b i d . p. 2 6 9 .

"I learned of the outbreak of the war at the American Embassy on the morning of September 1. My first reaction was one of overwhelming pessimism. This, I thought, was the beginning of the last act in the decline and fall of European civilization. The fabric of this civilization, with its basis of individualism, had survived the shock of the World War, 257

but with terrible rents. What pathetic self-deception to believe that a new European war, waged with still more destructive weapons, could have any happier result! "Just one hope remained on this day when all Europe was, or should have been, in mourning: America must be preserved from this new slaughter. This feeling was very much strengthened when another visitor to the Embassy on the day of the outbreak of the war, an enthusiastic interventionist, declared vehemently: 'America will be in this war if men like me have anything to say about it. We could crack Hitler in five years.' "Five years! A good many Americans—millions most probably, as against the hundreds of thousands of our casualties in the World War—would have most probably fallen before the Siegfried Line and on other battlefields of what would most probably be not a single war, but a whole cycle of wars, national and civil. Was there any compelling reason why this should be? "One idea which I simply could not take seriously, although it was hotly maintained by some old acquaintances in Paris, was that Hitler's victory in Europe would be the prelude to a Nazi invasion of the United States. This seemed to me as fantastic as H. G. Wells' conception of an invasion from Mars. There are some eighty million Germans. I do not underestimate their fighting quality, their scientific and technical achievement, their capacity for disciplined organization. But to believe that these eighty million Germans could first conquer a somewhat larger number of Frenchmen and Englishmen, far richer in natural resources, hold down tens of millions of discontented Slav subjects, fend off the Soviet Union, and then launch an invasion of America, a country of one hundred and thirty million people, backed by the strongest industrial plant in the world, and protected by two oceans, simply does not make sense to me.

"More appealing and familiar, perhaps, is the argument in the name of the common democratic tradition of the United States, Great Britain, and France. But a full-fledged modern war (it is most unlikely that a war, once begun, could remain a war of limited liability) is too desperately serious to be undertaken without some cause more compelling than sentimentality. A democratic government, based on respect for the individual rights of its citizens, cannot, without being untrue to its own principles, throw these citizens' into war unless its own independence or territorial integrity is threatened. This was not the case in the World War; I do not think it will be the case in the present conflict. "Moreover, I confess to a certain weary hear a propagandist broadcast about the war liberty, democracy, and humanity, about Hitler all the world's ills. Liberty, democracy, words. But war, in the light of very recent


impatience when I as a struggle for as the source of humanity are fine history, is a singu-

larly unpromising method of promoting their realization. As is evident from a preceding chapter in the book, Hitler and everything be stands for are abhorrent to me. But if Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini were the distinctive products of the last great war, also announced as a crusade for democracy and the rights of small nations, what reasonable prospect is there that the results of the new war will be more favorable? Have we forgotten how many four-minute experts on international affairs told us that all that was necessary to make a free and happy world was to smash the Kaiser? The Kaiser has gone. The world has not become more pacific or more orderly. * * *

"My strongest feeling whenever I hear someone like the interventionist who was in the Embassy lightheartedly talking about the necessity for America to 'crack H i t l e r , ' even if it takes five years, is one of the cruel injustices to the future American 'unknown soldiers'—Detroit mechanics, Iowa farmers, New England college professors—who would be sacrificed in this alien quarrel. We are not responsible for this new acute phase of the decline and fall of European civilization. We were not associated with the British and French guarantee to Poland, so recklessly given, so manifestly impossible to implement after Germany had fortified its western frontier. Every people must pay for the mistakes of its own government; but it seems to me outrageously unjust and unreasonable to expect Americans to pay for the mistakes of foreign governments, to give up their lives because of mistaken judgments in the making of which they had not the slightest voice, to give a blank check of support to any foreign government. "So, whenever I hear someone announcing his intention to do what he can to bring America into the war, I feel strengthened in my own resolution to do what little I can to keep America out. I know that terribly powerful forces, compounded of skillful foreign propaganda, of honest emotional sympathy with Great Britain and France and hatred of Hitler, of the short-sighted material self-interest which finds reflection in the boom on the stock market whenever there is the prospect of a good long sanguinary war, are at work to drag America into the world butchery. Much the same combination of circumstances drew us into the last one.

"But I have enough faith in the reason and common sense of oar own democratic system to believe that we are not fatalistically predestined to succumb. It is not the men like Senator Robert M. La Follette, whom American public opinion has judged wrong in the light of its ultimate 259

reaction to America's participation in the World War. The Neutrality Act, abused by every war-monger, but passed, it may be recalled, with the virtually unanimous approval of the American people, definitely places peace above war profit. Had it been in existence during the World War, our participation would have probably been avoided, because the issues involved in the sinking of American ships carrying supplies to the Allied countries and the deaths of Americans traveling on belligerent ships would not have arisen, and the huge stake which America had acquired in an Allied victory through a swollen war trade would not have grown up. Friends of peace for America should be most insistent that the only changes in the Neutrality Act should be in the direction of stiffening it. "Let America's destiny be to keep alight the flame of civilization which was lit in Europe and which is now apparently going out there. Let us keep clear of adventurous crusades which, after wasting our lives and property, will inevitably end in futility and disillusionment. Let us be strong for the preservation of peace in our own hemisphere, in the regions where we can reasonably hope to make our military and naval and economic strength decisive. Let us shut our ears to the barrage of conscious and unconscious propaganda that will play on us with increasing force as Europe's death gamble becomes more and more desperate. Let us remember that, by every Christian, humanist, democratic standard, every individual American life is sacred and precious, to be sacrificed only if our own security is threatened, not to be thrown away in the interest of foreign powers. A n d let us never forget that the surest road to fascism, to communism, to every other form of the brutalitarian state is through w a r . The







" * * * In the light of the plain facts of the last two decades, can anyone place faith in the Wilsonian phrases, now being furbished up for new use about war as an agency to end war, to create a better world, to make right and justice prevail? The fruit of the war to make the world safe for democracy was three of the most brutally antidemocratic revolutions in history. The sequel to the war to end war was an era of numerous minor wars and acts of international aggression, culminating in what is essentially a renewal of the World War, with far more terrible means of destruction available to the combatants." Ibid. p. 281. " W h e r e I d o take issue w i t h the t r e n d o f official o p i n i o n i n F r a n c e a n d G r e a t B r i t a i n a n d w i t h a g o o d deal o f unofficial o p i n i o n i n A m e r i c a is i n r e f u s i n g t o believe t h a t a l l w i l l be f o r the best i n a h a p p y w o r l d i f o n l y H i t l e r i s defeated. I w a s


talking with one of my American interventionist friends in Paris shortly after the outbreak of the war. He was blithely predicting five or six years of sanguinary struggle, in which he wished America to supply a good deal of the cannon fodder. I suggested that civilization would not last so long. " 'To hell with civilization." he said. 'We're going to beat Hitler.'

" * * * Is there any reason to believe that the downfall of Hitler will be any surer pledge of the future peace and security of the world than was the deposition of the Kaiser?" Ibid. p. 282. * * * There are several prospective beneficiaries waiting like vultures around carrion to take advantage of Europe's war to an end that will certainly be bitter for all concerned. The most obvious of these beneficiaries are the half Asiatic and wholly barbarous Soviet Union and Japan. "Perhaps the most disastrous and permanent result of the war will prove to be the westward expansion of the territorial possessions and influence of the Soviet Union, that implacable enemy of everything individualistic and humanistic in the European cultural tradition. Within a few weeks after the outbreak of hostilities some thirteen million unfortunate human beings— Poles, White Russians, and Ukranians—had been brought under Stalin's rule, while the freedom of several little peasant democracies in the Baltic had been destroyed or gravely threatened." Ibid. p. 283. "At the very least, much that gave support and character to the individualistic civilization of Europe seems certain to disappear under the impact of war. The British national debt increased roughly tenfold during the World War. Can it stand another gigantic increase without financial collapse, with its accompaniments of inflation and repudiation and all the grave social consequences which these would entail? The French franc, worth twenty cents in gold before the first World War, is now worth a little over two cents in terms of the present devalued American dollar. What will it be worth after the end of the present war? "The belligerent nations must reckon with cruel losses, economic as well as human, in the form of lost markets, bankrupt investments, destroyed shipping and property. * *" Ibid. p. 291. "* * * T h e r e is a c o n f u s e d f e e l i n g t h a t A m e r i c a s h o u l d ' d o s o m e t h i n g a b o u t i t , ' p e r h a p s i n t h e best s t y l e o f t h e c r u s a d e o f 1917, d e s i g n e d t o m a k e t h e w o r l d safe f o r d e m o c r a c y t o t h e t u n e o f ' O v e r T h e r e . ' My own conclusions as to America's proper role is entirely different. It seems to me that any statesman who would directly or indirectly work for American


involvement in what is not a single war but simply an episode in a long series of wars and revolutions would incur a crushing responsibility before history and before his own conscience. The spectacle of a great civilization in decline must arouse our deepest grief; but there is nothing we can effectively do to avert it.

"America does not possess the infinite power or the infinite wisdom that are supposed to be the attributes of Almighty Providence. It is first of all beyond our physical power, unless we propose to out-Hitler Hitler in militarization, with all the disastrous consequences which this would entail for our democratic ideal, to put every obstreperous nation in Europe and Asia into what we regard as its proper place. And, even apart from this very important consideration, America seems to me singularly i l l adapted for the role of world judge and arbiter. "Because we are a young people our judgments are likely to be intolerant and impatient, naive and half-baked. We are clay in the hands of a skillful propagandist from one of the older lands of Europe with designs on our men and our money. We succumb far too easily to thinking of complicated world developments in oversimplified terms of 'menaces' against which we must go out and fight. * * *" Ibid. p. 292. "It may prove to have been wishful thinking, but I do not believe there is anything fatalistically preordained about American entrance in the present war. Our national destiny, properly conceived, would be to keep our own hemisphere free from aggressive foreign penetration (a big enough job even for an ambitious people), to work out our own great problem of insuring that mechanical progress will mean work and a steadily rising standard of living for all, to take the lead in the relief enterprises that will be only too necessary throughout Europe's ordeal. The argument is sometimes used that American economy will be so much affected by the war that participation will become ultimately inevitable. This seems to me open to the obvious retort that whatever losses may be incurred by staying out of war will be negligible, compared with those which will be entailed by going in. Moreover, the costs of remaining aloof would be only material. The costs of entering war would have to be measured in human lives and in greatly increased liability to reactionary modifications of our democratic and individualistic system." Ibid. p. 293. There is just a shadow of a possibility that the plain people everywhere w i l l rebel at last against the sanguinary game of which they are always the victims, that they will set up a new order in which would-be dictators w i l l be shot at sight, and conscription and balance-of-power politics and 262

competitive armaments and all the other toys with which politicians and diplomats and generals like to play until they go off in the ultimately inevitable explosion will be banished forever. It is only on this basis of a free United States of Europe, the product of free men firmly and implacably resolved never again to be misled into the dark and bloody insanity of war and prepared to make the infinitely lesser sacrifices which permanent peace would require, that the present century in Europe may be an epoch not of servitude and barbarism, but of freedom and rebirth." Ibid. ps. 297-298. On June 12, 1940 after Roosevelt, instead of addressing Congress, had made a war speech to the boys at the University of Virginia, according to the newspapers Senator Wheeler threatened to quit the Democratic Party if Roosevelt continued his war policy. Roosevelt made a bitter attack on the Italians accusing them of stabbing France in the back. The proceedings in the Senate were reported as follows: " C h a r g e s that President Roosevelt's p r o g r a m of a i d to the A l l i e s is l e a d i n g the country i n t o w a r were made on the floor o f the Senate yesterday b y Senator B u r t o n K . W h e e l e r ( D ) o f M o n t a n a . O t h e r Senators j o i n e d i n his attack o n the A d ministration. S e n a t o r W h e e l e r , w a r n i n g the A m e r i c a n people t o w a k e u p , served notice that " i f i t becomes necessary t o break w i t h the D e m o c r a t i c p a r t y I s h a l l break w i t h i t i f i t i s g o i n g t o b e a w a r p a r t y . " H e said h e w o u l d n o t s u p p o r t " a n y candidate for P r e s i d e n t o f the U n i t e d States w h o i s g o i n g t o t r y t o get us into this w a r . " A f t e r Senator R u s h D . H o l t ( D ) , o f W e s t V i r g i n i a , a n d S e n a t o r D . W o r t h C l a r k ( D ) o f I d a h o , h a d assailed P r e s i d e n t R o o s e v e l t ' s i n d o r s e m e n t o f f u l l page w a r p r o p a g a n d a a d vertisements by the so-called c o m m i t t e e to defend A m e r i c a b y a i d i n g the A l l i e s , S e n a t o r W h e e l e r asked H o l t w h a t h a d bec o m e o f a r e s o l u t i o n c a l l i n g for a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f foreign war propaganda. " I d o n o t t h i n k i t has the a p p r o v a l o f L o r d L o t h i a n , the B r i t i s h a m b a s s a d o r . " H o l t replied. " W h e t h e r i t has the a p p r o v a l o f L o r d L o t h i a n o r a n y b o d y else," W h e e l e r declared, " i t seems t o m e t h a t here i s a n advertisement p u b l i s h e d i n the great newspapers o f the c o u n t r y at great c o s t . " " E v e r y member of this b o d y k n o w s that somebody is p a y i n g for i t . W e o u g h t t o k n o w w h o i s p a y i n g for i t , a n d w h e r e the m o n e y comes f r o m . I f there i s m o n e y b e i n g p u t o u t f o r N a z i p r o p a g a n d a i n t h i s c o u n t r y w e o u g h t t o k n o w that, too.


"I think the overwhelming majority of the members of this body is opposed to getting into this war, and I may say that no matter what the English press and the English newspaper writers thought about the speech made by the President, we ought to serve notice that the great majority of the members of the Senate are not going to vote for war and we are not going to get into it." "We do not want to fool Great Britain or France into thinking that we are going to send American boys across the water again to be shot to pieces on the battlefields of Europe. We are not going to see them come back here and fill our insane asylums and our hospitals, with their legs off and their arms off, blind and deaf. "America ought to wake up! American mothers ought to wake up; American youth ought to wake up; the American workingmen ought to wake up, because anybody who has any sense at all knows what is happening. We know the propaganda that is going on and we know and every member of the Senate knows that every move is being made to lead us, if you please, down the road to war. Holt said it was well known that here in Washington "the social lobby controlled by the dictates of the British Embassy has enlisted for the duration of the war." Senator Millard E. Tydings ( D ) , of Maryland, * * * denounced President Roosevelt's speech accusing Premier Mussolini of stabbing France in the back. Senator Tydings observed that the business of making war is not a one-way street, agreeing with Senator Holt that bluffing may cause others to declare war on us. Another incident which elicited expressions of amazement was a radio broadcast Tuesday night by Edwin C. H i l l , a commercial commentator. Senator Holt quoted H i l l as saying that the President had discussed the question of getting this country into the war with certain individuals who called at the White House. Senator Wheeler said he too had been informed that H i l l "made a statement over the radio to the effect that the President of the United States called in some people last evening and questioned them as to whether or not we should have a declaration of war at the present time." "It seems to me that a statement of that kind, given out by a radio commentator, if it was not true should certainly be sufficient reason for not permitting him to speak further over the radio as a commentator in this country," Senator Wheeler declared. Senator Holt touched off the Senate debate when he began a speech denouncing the Administration's policy of trading in surplus or obsolete airplanes and other war supplies for resale to the Allies. 264

"We have seen our country led away from neutrality to non-belligerency," he said, "and if certain individuals in the Government have their way we will strike out the word 'non' and will be a belligerent before the snow flies. That is why I am trying in my humble way to tell the American people that unless they awaken to the danger American boys will be sent over there to man the obsolete planes and the obsolete guns. Noting that M r . Roosevelt had indorsed the advertisements of the committee to defend America by aiding the Allies, Holt submitted data as to its background and origin. " O f course, they have a front, a stuffed shirt, William Allen White, but let us see where that committee started," Holt said. "Eighteen prominent bankers and others met secretly on the 29th day of A p r i l in New York to set up this committee. They were called by Frederick R. Coudert. Do Senators know who he is? He was the legal advisor of the British embassy who helped lead us into the last World War. Frederick Coudert was the man who helped generate the propaganda that took the American boys to their death in 1917 and 1918, while he was on the pay roll of the British government." On July 11, 1940, Senator Holt placed in the Congressional Record a partial list of those who helped finance the full page war propaganda advertisement published by the group styling itself "Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies." Such partial list included directors and members of the families of international bankers and prominent persons in the broadcasting and movie business, among whom may be mentioned: Mrs. Averell Harriman: Mrs. H. P. Davison: Mrs. Daniel Guggenheim: Mrs. John Schiff: Frederick Warburg, of Kuhn, Loeb & C o . : Cornelius D. Whitney: Thomas M. Lamont, of J. P. Morgan & Co.; Joseph Thomas, of Lehman Bros.; I. D. Levy, of Columbia Broadcasting; Jerome H. Loucheim, of Columbia Broadcasting; Henry Luce, editor of Time Magazine; Samuel Goldwyn; Maxwell Anderson; Fred Astaire; Irving Berlin; Douglas Fairbanks, Jr.; L y n n Fontanne; Myrna L o y ; Alfred Lunt; Paul M u n i ; Robert Sherwood. This list includes many New York millionaires, a few Christians? hot for England and many Jews demanding the lives of our boys and the destruction of our liberties to punish Hitler. They smell of blood. About two-thirds are for Roosevelt and one-third now for Willkie. Senator Holt stated his purpose to give, at a later date, names of the corporations contributing, which he explained were of the following types: 265

" I r o n a n d steel, chemicals, m e c h a n i c a l e q u i p m e n t , o i l , metals, c e l l u l o i d , electrical e q u i p m e n t , aircraft, m u n i t i o n s , steamship lines, s m e l t i n g a n d r e f i n i n g , steel castings, b a r b e d w i r e manufactures, s h e l l casings, f o r e i g n o w n e d a n d c o n trolled industrial companies, other corporations p r o d u c i n g o t h e r materials necessary f o r w a r , i n t e r n a t i o n a l b a n k i n g , international insurance." ( V o l . 86 Congressional Record, p. 14360).

It will be recalled that the full page advertisement contributed to by this war-mongering group of corporations was declared by the President of the United States to be a great piece of work and extremely educational for the people of the country. Ogden Mills Reid is the owner and editor of the pro-Jew, proEnglish, pro-war New York Herald-Tribune, though it is largely run by his wife in cooperation with Dorothy Thompson, former wife of Josef Bard, of Budapest, Hungary, and with Walter Lippmann, Jew of New York City. Ogden Mills Reid is a director and a heavy stockholder in a large company with a plant in New York and England, which has been in the red until recently, but through blood money it has lately succeeded in getting into the black. A recent editorial in the Herald-Tribune declared: "It is quite probable that the least costly solution, in both life and welfare, would be (for the United States) to declare war on Germany at once." Despite the efforts of the Jewish controlled press and radio and the New Deal character-assassinators and hatchet-men, Col. Charles Lindbergh made another address on June 15, 1940. " T h e r e is an a t t e m p t to b e c l o u d the issue that c o n f r o n t s us. It is n o t alone an issue of b u i l d i n g an adequate defense f o r o u r c o u n t r y . T h a t m u s t a n d can b e d o n e . " " B u t w e m u s t n o t confuse the q u e s t i o n o f n a t i o n a l defense w i t h the q u e s t i o n of e n t e r i n g a E u r o p e a n w a r . " * * * A r m i n g f o r the defense o f A m e r i c a i s c o m p a t i b l e w i t h n o r m a l l i f e , commerce a n d c u l t u r e . * * B u t a i m i n g to attack the c o n t i nent o f E u r o p e w o u l d necessitate t h a t the lives a n d t h o u g h t s o f every m a n , w o m a n a n d c h i l d i n t h i s c o u n t r y b e directed t o w a r d w a r for the n e x t g e n e r a t i o n , p r o b a b l y f o r the n e x t several generations. "We cannot continue for long to follow the course our government has taken without becoming involved in war with Germany. There are some who already advocate our entry into such a war. There are many perfectly sincere men and women who believe that we can send weapons to kill people in Europe without becoming involved in war with those people. Still


others believe that by gestures and applause we can assist France and England to win without danger to our own country.

"In addition to these, however, there are men among us of less honesty who advocate stepping closer and closer to war, knowing well that a point exists beyond which there can be no turning back. They have baited the trap of war with requests for modest assistance. This latter group is meeting with success at the moment."

" T h i s dabbling we have been doing in European affairs can lead only to failure in the future as it has in the past." * * "We demand that foreign nations refrain from interfering in our hemisphere, yet we constantly interfere in theirs. And while we have been taking an ineffective part in the war abroad, we have inexcusably neglected our defenses at home. In fact we have let our own affairs drift along until we have not even a plan of defense for the continent of North America." " N o people ever had a greater decision to make. We hold our children's future in our hands as we deliberate, for if we turn to war the battles will be hard fought and the outcome is not likely to be decided in our lifetime. This is a question of mortgaging the lives of our children and our grandchildren. Every family in the land would have its wounded and its dead." " * * * If we decide to fight, then the United States must prepare for war for many years to come, and on a scale unprecedented in all history. In that case we must turn to a dictatorial government, for there is no military efficiency to be lost * * *." "We must have a nation ready to give whatever is required for its future welfare, and leaders who are more interested in their country than in their own advancement." " W i t h an adequate defense, no foreign army can invade us. Our advantage in defending America is as great as our disadvantage would be in attacking Europe. From a military geographical standpoint, we are the most fortunate country in the world." "If the British Navy could not support an invasion of Norway against the German A i r Force, there is little reason for us to worry about an invasion of America as long as our own air force is adequately maintained. As far as invasion by air is concerned, it is impossible for any existing air force to attack effectively across the ocean." * * * " N o w that we have become one of the world's greatest nations, shall we throw away the independent American destiny which our forefathers gave their lives to win?" "Shall we submerge our future in the endless wars of the Old World?" 267

"Or shall we build our own defenses and leave European war to European countries!"' "Shall we continue this suicidal conflict between Western nations and white races, or shall we learn from history as well as from modern Europe that a civilization cannot be preserved by conflict among its own peoples, regardless of how different their ideologies may be?" " Y o u men and women of America who believe that our destiny lies in building strength at home and not in war abroad — to you I say that we must act now to stop this trend toward war." * * * "If you believe that we should not enter a European war, you must support those of us who oppose such action. We cannot stop this trend alone. Some of your Representatives in Washington are already considering a declaration of war, but they are responsible to you for the action they take. Let them know how you feel about this. Speak to your friends and organize in your community. Nothing but a determined effort on the part of every one of us will prevent the disaster toward which our nation is now heading." In Herring's great book " A n d So To War", recently published by the Yale University Press, he states: " T h e s e three chapters i n A m e r i c a n — a n d B r i t i s h — h i s t o r y served the t w o n a t i o n s i n different degrees. T h e first, the M o n r o e D o c t r i n e , served b o t h B r i t a i n a n d A m e r i c a . T h e second, o u r entrance i n t o the F a r E a s t a n d o u r espousal o f the O p e n D o o r p o l i c y , served B r i t a i n g r e a t l y , A m e r i c a l i t t l e . T h e t h i r d , o u r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the W o r l d W a r , served B r i t a i n a n d cheated A m e r i c a . T h e record reveals the g r o w i n g ineptness o f A m e r i c a n d i p l o m a c y . "

P . 101. "* * On October 5, 1937, he (Roosevelt) reminded the w o r l d that 'the f o u n d a t i o n s o f c i v i l i z a t i o n are s e r i o u s l y threatened.' T h e f o l l o w i n g d a y , i n the Daily Worker, M r . E a r l B r o w d e r echoed, ' T h e C o m m u n i s t p a r t y w e l c o m e s the President's declaration. * * * * * " I n 1 9 1 4 , w h e n w a r b r o k e i n E u r o p e , M r . W i l s o n declared A m e r i c a n n e u t r a l i t y . B y 1 9 1 5 w e were l e n d i n g m o n e y t o the A l l i e s , accepting the B r i t i s h ' b l o c k a d e , ' d e m a n d i n g 'strict a c c o u n t a b i l i t y . ' B y 1 9 1 6 w e accepted the B r i t i s h b l a c k list w h i c h even C a n a d a rejected. B y 1 9 1 7 w e declared war." " B u t R o o s e v e l t travels faster." Ibid. P . 22. " T h e r e are t w o things t o b e said o f M r . R o o s e v e l t a n d his associates in the i n t e r n a t i o n a l crisis of 1937-38. " E i t h e r they are b l u f f i n g , a n d are therefore futile. " O r , they are not b l u f f i n g , a n d are therefore dangerous."


Ibid. P. 24.

" N o v e m b e r 30 ( 1 9 3 7 ) the ( J e w ) New York Times, in a three-column editorial, ' A m e r i c a ' s Aloofness,' denounced those w h o w o u l d spread the c o n v i c t i o n a b r o a d t h a t the U n i t e d States w o u l d r e m a i n n e u t r a l . "

Ibid. P. 36. " J a n u a r y 1 3 , ( 1 9 3 8 ) W a s h i n g t o n a n n o u n c e d that three A m e r i c a n l i g h t cruisers w o u l d p a r t i c i p a t e i n the ceremonies i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the o p e n i n g o f the n e w B r i t i s h n a v a l base a t S i n g a p o r e o n F e b r u a r y 1 4 . "

Ibid. Ps. 45-46.

" O n the q u e s t i o n o f a n 'agreement' w i t h G r e a t B r i t a i n , i t w a s revealed t h a t C a p t a i n I n g e r s o l l , the n a v a l c h i e f o f w a r p l a n s , h a d recently ( F e b . 1 9 3 8 ) spent some d a y s i n London. H i s v i s i t w a s k e p t a great secret, a n d w a s o n l y a c c i d e n t a l l y revealed. Congressman Brewster of M a i n e and others d e m a n d e d the m e a n i n g o f t h a t v i s i t . Admiral Leahy refused t o say w h a t h a d t r a n s p i r e d . "

Ibid. P. 52. " T h e p u z z l e d p u b l i c h a d a l l t h i s t o m u l l over. " M r . H u l l said t h a t w e h a d n o agreement w i t h B r i t a i n . " A d m i r a l L e a h y said t h a t h e w o u l d n ' t t e l l a n y t h i n g e x cept in executive session. " M r . K r o c k ( a J e w — N e w York Times) spoke o f ' a n o d ' and 'a w i n k . ' "

Ibid. P. 53. " F e b r u a r y 8 , 1 9 3 8 , the n e w i n d u s t r i a l m o b i l i z a t i o n b i l l was introduced b y ( w a r mongering) Congressman M a y . T h i s b i l l ( w a s ) w r i t t e n t o meet the P r e s i d e n t ' s request o f J a n u a r y 3 , ( 1 9 3 8 ) * * T h e M a y B i l l provides that i n event o f w a r the President s h a l l b e granted w i d e c o n t r o l o f price levels, w h i c h automatically carries c o n t r o l o f wage levels, the c o n t r o l o f a l l industry, o f the r a d i o and o f ' p u b l i c services,' v i r t u a l c o n t r o l of the press t h r o u g h the power to determine p r i o r i t y in shipments of paper and other essentials, the c o n t r o l of labor u n i o n s t h r o u g h p r o c l a i m i n g them ' i n d u s t r i a l organizations,' a n d esp e c i a l l y the c o n t r o l o f a l l w o r k e r s o n railroads and other p u b l i c carriers. T h e one t h i n g w h i c h the b i l l failed to provide was machinery for t a k i n g the profit out o f w a r . "

Ibid. ps. 54-55. "February 28, 1938, the New York World-Telegram carried a headline ' U . S. Prepared to Mobilize Million Troops,' revealing that plans had been completed by the War Department to place 1,230,000 well-equipped troops in the field within four months after outbreak of war, also to mobilize 10,000 industrial plants capable of instant conversion for manufacture of war materials." Ibid. Ps. 62-63. " M a r c h 7 , 1 9 3 8 , a press d i s p a t c h f r o m L o n d o n q u o t e d the r e m a r k s o f W i n s t o n C h u r c h i l l , f o r m e r cabinet m e m b e r ,


made d u r i n g a debate i n the H o u s e o f C o m m o n s . 'Excellent arrangements,' h e s a i d , 'have been made w i t h the U n i t e d States. * *' "

Ibid. Ps. 63-64. "Those who lead us into war have first the task of persuasion, or 'education,' as Robert Lansing put it. They must take people who do not wish to fight and make them want to fight. They must take peace-loving people and convince them that the war is a just war, a generous war, a war for their own good and for the ultimate good of future generations." Ibid. P. 65. "* * It seems almost rude to point out to the ( L o n d o n ) Times that the A m e r i c a n stake in C h i n a of less than two h u n d r e d m i l l i o n s is about one-sixth that of B r i t a i n , that instead of o u r c h e r i s h i n g ambitions to serve as the protector of W e s t e r n interests in the F a r East, we are definitely c o m m i t t e d to w i t h d r a w a l f r o m the P h i l i p p i n e s , a n d that our trade w i t h the entire F a r East represents o n l y 10 per cent (most of w h i c h is w i t h J a p a n ) o f o u r t o t a l trade w i t h the w o r l d . I f A m e r i c a i s persuaded to play the hero in A s i a t i c waters, she must be persuaded on sentim e n t a l , not economic grounds. * * * " B u t the m y t h of o u r stake in the F a r East has g r o w n to respectable b u l k . W h e n Japan invaded M a n c h u r i a in 1931, H e n r y L . S t i m s o n , P r e s i d e n t H o o v e r ' s Secretary o f State, b o l d l y d e n o u n c e d J a p a n , t h i n k i n g h e h a d reason t o believe t h a t B r i t a i n w a s prepared t o take s i m i l a r a c t i o n . B u t Sir J o h n S i m o n , perhaps a w a r e t h a t B r i t a i n s t o o d t o g a i n m o r e f r o m f r i e n d l y trade w i t h J a p a n t h a n f r o m w a r r i n g f o r C h i n a , announced B r i t i s h neutrality. M r . S t i m s o n h a d p l a y e d the game i n the n o w a p p r o v e d A m e r i c a n fashion, b y p u t t i n g the U n i t e d States out front o n the f i r i n g l i n e . "

Ibid. Ps. 102-103.

" F r a n k l i n D . Roosevelt i s the latest o f G o d ' s g o o d gifts t o the B r i t i s h E m p i r e . "

Ibid. P. 105. "* * * B u t these ties are not enough to e x p l a i n the generous a r d o r w i t h w h i c h the U n i t e d States rushes to the a i d of the B r i t i s h E m p i r e , for over against them are other indisputable facts w h i c h stir a gentle suspicion of B r i t i s h d i p l o m a c y . A f t e r a l l , w e fought t w o wars w i t h B r i t a i n . A f t e r a l l , B r i t a i n , d u r i n g our C i v i l W a r , encouraged the secessionists and embarrassed W a s h i n g t o n i n devious ways. A f t e r a l l , E n g l a n d p r o p a g a n d i z e d u s i n t o the W o r l d W a r , w i t h notable h e l p f r o m o u r o w n A n g l o philes, a n d even the average reader of black p r i n t k n o w s somet h i n g o f that story. A f t e r a l l , E n g l a n d b o r r o w e d four b i l l i o n s f r o m us, a n d some t h i n k that she made no heroic effort to repay it. " S o , w h i l e w e may b e i n favor o f l o v i n g and h o n o r i n g the B r i t i s h E m p i r e , there are some w h o prefer not to obey her. * * *


" O n e of these is the s p i r i t u a l atmosphere of those areas of N e w E n g l a n d a n d N e w Y o r k i n w h i c h the leaders o f the n a t i o n are housed a n d schooled. These leaders i n c l u d e the y o u n g m e n w h o w i l l one day be members o f the first b a n k i n g houses o f P h i l a d e l p h i a , N e w Y o r k , a n d B o s t o n ; w h o w i l l one day b e ministers t o D e n m a r k a n d ambassadors t o L o n d o n ; w h o w i l l one day occupy the desks i n the State D e p a r t m e n t , w h o w i l l perhaps serve in the Senate a n d sit in the W h i t e H o u s e . * * * T h e r e is n o t h i n g occult or obscure about this process. The places are o n the m a p — a l o n g the H u d s o n , i n L o n g I s l a n d , the suburbs o f P h i l a d e l p h i a a n d o f B o s t o n . T h e schools are also nameable—Groton, St. M a r k ' s , St. P a u l ' s , H a r v a r d , Y a l e , Princeton. * * * T h e r e is an unmistakable a n d increasing flavor of L o n d o n a n d O x f o r d c l i n g i n g t o them. I t i s a l l quite i n t a n g i b l e , but nonetheless apparent that a m o n g the leaders in A m e r i c a n f i n a n c e , p o l i t i c s , d i p l o m a c y — a n d especially i n d i p l o m a c y — there is o p e n r e c o g n i t i o n of the superior merits of the E n g l i s h ways of t h i n k i n g a n d acting. It appears in the cut of trousers a n d the i n t o n a t i o n of the letter a. * * *

" O f course, the church helps mightily, the Protestant Episcopal Church, that is, which is one Station * * of the Church of England, and to which belong with delightful agreement practically all of the better sort of people. The Church, by setting an example of perfect decorum, serves to remind its worshipers that English ways are the best ways. There is scarcely a priest who does not know that there is none greater than a Bishop, unless perhaps a Lord Bishop. Moreover, the Church takes pains to duplicate the English pattern as faithfully as possible. If she is denied Canterbury she has Manning (Bishop Manning was born in England). If she cannot have St. Paul's she does have St. John the Divine; for Westminster she substitutes the National Cathedral on the hills above the Capitol. * * Deprived of the House of Lords, the Episcopal Church delights in her hold upon the Lords of finance and diplomacy. (This criticism, according to the knowledge of the compiler of this pamphlet, applies mainly to the rich and fashionable Anglophile Episcopalians of the New York, Washington, and New England areas, and to the aristocracy of the South, real or imaginary, and even in these areas most of the laymen are devoted, patriotic Americans.) " T h i s g a t h e r i n g o f influences w h i c h moves A m e r i c a n sympathies on t o w a r d E n g l a n d is not a conspiracy but an aura. It is an atmosphere in w h i c h the better b o r n and the better p a i d of the Eastern seaboard l i v e a n d breathe. T h e y do not speak softly of the B r i t i s h because of any c o m m a n d f r o m the B r i t i s h A d m i r a l t y o r the B r i t i s h C o l o n i a l Office, but because N e w E n g l a n d a n d N e w Y o r k have learned reverence for B r i t i s h ways, seeking to cloak their uncertainty in B r i t i s h assurance. And as go New York, Boston, and Philadelphia, so go Cleve-


land, Chicago, and San Francisco. T h e better people of the lesser provinces take their l e a d f r o m the rulers in the East. T h e y seek to speak l i k e them, to pray l i k e them, to dress l i k e them, to t h i n k l i k e them. " T h e cause of A n g l o - A m e r i c a n comity has strong support in the ablest newspaper of the W e s t e r n H e m i s p h e r e , the ( J e w ) N e w Y o r k T i m e s . * * * A n d if at times there seems to be a B r i t i s h slant to (its) news, it may be e x p l a i n e d by the fact that so many of its crack newswriters are B r i t i s h citizens—Frederick T . B i r c h a l l a n d W a l t e r D u r a n t y , w i t h w a n d e r i n g commissions i n Europe, G . E . R . Gedye i n Central Europe, P . J . P h i l i p i n Paris, a n d H u g h Byas in T o k y o . * * * " S o i t i s that i n f u l l g o o d conscience a n d w i t h admirable s k i l l the N e w Y o r k T i m e s serves as a s o u n d i n g b o a r d f o r the B r i t i s h p o i n t o f v i e w o n almost every issue o f o u r i n t e r n a t i o n a l l i f e . I t fought the N y e m u n i t i o n s i n q u i r y w i t h w o r d s w h i c h m i g h t have been w r i t t e n i n the B r i t i s h F o r e i g n Office. I t c o n sistently opposed a l l genuine neutrality measures.

And So To War. ps. 110-115. " T h e B r i t i s h E m p i r e needs the support of the U n i t e d States. * * * Since 1914 it has become imperative, a n d it has sometimes been g i v e n w i t h disastrous effects u p o n the U n i t e d States. We were d r a w n i n t o the war as E n g l a n d ' s a l l y . We fought a war i n w h i c h she buttressed a n d increased her E m p i r e . W e l o a n e d her money w h i c h she has made scant effort to repay. We tied o u r financial p o l i c y t o hers a n d were outplayed. W e f o l l o w e d her lead in b u i l d i n g a navy w h i c h can have s m a l l use other than the protection of the status q u o in the Far East."

Ibid., p. 116. " T h e B r i t i s h government invites the U n i t e d States to j o i n her. T h e i n v i t a t i o n bears the announcement that i t w i l l be a n alliance f o r preserving democracy in a w a n t o n w o r l d . C l o s e r e x a m i n a t i o n reveals that the chief result o f such alliance w i l l be the preservation of the B r i t i s h E m p i r e . " A n d Americans, being inquisitive and having yielded to that seductive c a l l before, are a n s w e r i n g : F o r w h a t do y o u propose that we fight—democracy or the B r i t i s h E m p i r e ? "

Ibid., p. 117. "So the issue is drawn. If Britain has her way with the United States, we will line up our new and mightier navy alongside the mighty navy of Britain. Together we will speak harshly to all disturbers of the present imperial peace. We will try to force the disturbers to cease their troubling. And then, if unsuccessful in those attempts, we will draw a band of steel around Japan, forcing her to loosen her hold on China and to remove her threat to British interests in Asia. If the present drift of official Washington opinion and


action is not blocked, we will do just these things. We will anticipate or join with Britain whenever she decides to threaten or to fight. If her weapon is a threat, it will be delivered in the name of justice and humanity. If it is a war, it will be a noble war for all mankind. Britain will not need these words for her own moral support but will use them freely for our edification. The men whom we draft will be assured that they fight to save democracy for their children's children. Not until the echo of the last gun is stilled, and another victor's peace is signed will these men—the ones who do not die—discover that they have fought for the melancholy satisfaction of postponing for a season the disruption of the British Empire. And unless all signs fail, the survivors of that war for democracy's golden gifts will return to an America in which the genius of a living democracy has been atrophied through disuse."

Ibid., ps. 118-119. "* * * We are now being prepared for war—psychologically. A war situation could develop at any moment. * * * "We can go in. We can loan our new allies more billions, no dollar of which we will ever see again. We can draft ten million men, certain that a sizable fraction of them will never return to their homes, their shops, their offices. We can build transports. We can land them in China, in France. Our mills and factories will be busy. Man power, woman power, will be drafted. Prices will skyrocket. The nation, in thought and action, will be mobilized. We will move and think as one. And, being powerful in men and money and raw materials, we and our allies—perhaps no longer democracies—will crush the autocracies, impose another Treaty of Versailles dividing the earth between us, and return each to our separate nations to discover what war has left which justifies the cost. Frightful as it may be, this will be the easier procedure for us. There will be the surge of righteous wrath, the whipping of hate, the lilt of marching music, the glamour and the sacrifice, and the proud imposition of peace upon defeated enemies. There will also be the ultimate agony and chaos. Such a war will inevitably fail of its purpose no matter what victories are won East or West." "Or we can stay out."

Ibid., ps. 166-167.

" T h i s attack u p o n A m e r i c a n neutrality comes f r o m the stalwart R i g h t and the bellicose Left. T h e N e w Y o r k Times and the D a i l y W o r k e r make c o m m o n cause. One group would


p u n i s h the fascists in order that a capitalist democracy m i g h t p r e v a i l , the other seeks fascism's destruction in order that c o m m u n i s m may be assured. B o t h announce their d e v o t i o n to peace; both are w i l l i n g to use the instruments of w a r . "

Ibid., p. 168. " T h e President o f the U n i t e d States, w i t h excellent conscience and pure i n t e n t i o n , is d o i n g those things w h i c h are calculated t o y i e l d h i m a place i n history w i t h W o o d r o w W i l s o n —as one of the t w o most dangerous m e n ever to occupy the W h i t e House. " T h e Secretary of State by his i n f l e x i b i l i t y and c o n s u m i n g belief in the virtues of coercion is m a k i n g his b i d f o r the harsh judgment of the future. "Theirs









" T h e one hope is that an energized citizenry, awakened to the p e r i l , may d e m a n d of Congress a swift staying of the present trend. "Congress alone can r e c a l l us to the sane p a t h of neutrality, * * * "Congress can do these things if the people speak."

Ibid., p. 172.



WAR! WAR! WAR! In Foreign Affairs the President Is a Usurping Dictator " W a r i s i n fact the true nurse o f executive a g g r a n d i z e ment. H e n c e i t has g r o w n i n t o a n a x i o m t h a t the e x e c u t i v e i s the d e p a r t m e n t o f p o w e r m o s t d i s t i n g u i s h e d b y its p r o p e n s i t y t o w a r ; hence i t i s the practice o f a l l states, i n p r o p o r t i o n as t h e y are free, to d i s a r m this p r o p e n s i t y of its influence."

President James Madison.

In his illuminating book, " A n d So To War," Herring states: "In the conduct of foreign affairs, the President of the United States is the most powerful constitutional ruler of our times. For all of the constitutional checks upon him, he exerts an almost absolute power in the area of the greatest national danger. He can on his sole responsibility take steps which make war inevitable for one hundred and thirty millions." P. 136. "Moreover, the President can say whatever he pleases, whenever he pleases, upon any subject of international moment. By such impulsive utterance, swiftly cabled to all the capitals of the world, he can commit one hundred and thirty million free citizens of the United States to a course not of their choosing. By words for which he is alone responsible, and in the framing of which he has neither asked nor accepted the counsel of his associates of the Congress, he can take us on the road to war. M r . Roosevelt's Chicago speech of October 5, 1937, is sufficient instance. To be sure, the bulk of the speech had been prepared in the State Department, but in his last-minute enthusiasm, and in one of those flashes of genius which make M r . Roosevelt dangerous, he inserted the sentence advocating 'quarantines,' a word which brought consternation to the more cautious officials in the State Department. "In other words, the President, by his uncontrolled right to send notes of any tenor, by his right to make speeches which are inevitably interpreted as the expression of the official view of the nation, by his right to grant or to withhold recognition from any new government, by his major hand in treaty-making, by his appointment of diplomatic officers, by his dominance over the State Department, and by his powers as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, can bring about international situations that make war likely. 275

and invite those 'incidents' which make war inevitable. These rights, added together, give the President of the United States the power to make war." Ibid., ps. 137-138. "The framers of the Constitution of the United States, who met in Philadelphia during the hot summer of 1787, faced the question of the warmaking power of their new government. A few of those fifty-five founding fathers, imperfectly weaned from the royal breast and intent upon modeling the presidency after the British throne, toyed with the idea of granting power to declare war to the President. Others wished to reserve such decision to the representatives of the people. The proponents of democracy won. The right to declare war was withheld from the President, withheld even from the more detached Senate, and granted to Congress as a whole. Thereby, exulted Jefferson, 'the dogs of war' have been held in leash. "It was a sizable victory": James Madison remarked: "In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture of heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man. . . . War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. "Hence it has grown into an axiom that the executive is the department of power most distinguished by its propensity to war; hence it is the practice of all states, in proportion as they are free, to disarm this propensity of its influence." Ibid., ps. 139-140. Herring shows, in his book " A n d So To War", that Jefferson did not make war upon Tripoli in 1801 until he had the approval of Congress; that in 1834 Jackson recognized a similar obligation, but that in 1846 President Polk, in his war on Mexico, departed from the Constitution and the Jefferson tradition. Then Abraham Lincoln warned: " 'The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon 276

us. But your view destroys the whole matter and places our President where kings have always stood.'" Ibid., p. 142. "Despite the warnings of the framers of the Constitution, the example of Jefferson and Jackson, and the further warning of the Supreme Court, the President of the United States today possesses the power to embroil us through naval maneuvers and the movement of troops to foreign territory and to commit us fatally through ill-advised and irresponsible statements." And So To War, p. 143. "* * * To Wilson, however, belongs the chief responsibility for departure from our traditional American doctrine of the exclusive right of Congress to initiate and declare war. From first to last, he withheld from Congress vital knowledge of his purposes and commitments, and told them such things, and only such things, as he thought suitable for their ears." Ibid., p. 145. "The concentration of power in the hands of the President has been further accelerated under Franklin D. Roosevelt. Grants of power may well prove dangerous in the formulation of domestic policies, but they are doubly dangerous in the contriving of foreign relations." Ibid., p. 146. "The well-nigh dictatorial power of the American President to say the words and to take the first steps which make war is not consistent with the genius of democracy. It is a power possessed by no other head of a democratic state. In England, no Premier or Foreign Minister would presume to make a public utterance upon foreign affairs without the counsel and the substantial assent of his cabinet. Nor would he take any action, or dispatch any note which committed the nation, without tangible assurance of the support of his Parliament. To do so would be to invite a swift note of 'no confidence' and his unseating." "It is time that an amendment be launched by Congress and submitted to the states for ratification limiting the President's powers in the control of foreign affairs. Such an amendment will be consonant with the clear intention of the framers of the Constitution. It will follow the clear purpose of Article II, Section 2, in which the President is empowered 'by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties,' and of Article I, Section 8, in which the Congress is granted the sole 'power to declare war.' It will follow the course laid down by Jefferson and Jackson. It will accord with the decision of the Supreme Court: "The President has no power to initiate or declare war.' "Under the terms of such an amendment, the President's 277

powers must be checked at those points where decisions make for war." Ibid., ps. 151-152. "And most important, a way should be found to divide the powers of the President, already discussed, among a larger body of advisers. At present, the President is under no compulsion to take anyone into his confidence when steps of international importance are contemplated. In actual practice, he usually consults his Secretary of State. He may, or may not, consult the Committees on Foreign Relations of the Senate or the House. The President may issue ultimatums to Japan or Germany without notifying Congress. He may even use the army and the navy for hostile purposes without consulting Congress." Ibid., p. 154. "Congress might achieve such a check upon the President by a resolution requiring that no important notes be sent, no public declarations of foreign policy be made, and no commitments entered into without the counsel and consent of the Foreign Relations committees of the House and the Senate. Or, if Congress wishes to go a step further, such a resolution—or, if necessary, an amendment—should provide for a larger Committee of Congress, with specific provision for the inclusion of leaders of minority parties." Ibid., p. 155. "And if the friends of Mr. Roosevelt dislike the proposal and condemn it as unnecessary and unjustified, let any qualified historian take them aside and recite tactfully and clearly the story of Woodrow Wilson, of the way in which his good intentions were defeated by his secret commitments to Great Britain, by his failure to uphold the neutral rights of the United States, and by his insistence on demands upon Germany that had no legal warrant. It will not be necessary to draw lessons from the living. The dead offer abundant evidence of our dire need for effective restraint upon the chivalrous instincts of presidents who would rush us to the succor of other peoples." Ibid., p. 156. "Franklin D. Roosevelt has taken the steps by which America can readily be involved. He has deliberately removed us from the neutral list. He has said, in unmistakable terms, that we stand with England and France and presumably Russia, against Japan, Germany, and Italy. He has speeded up our armaments, he has spoken fighting words, he has ordered greater maneuvers in the Pacific. He has refrained from withdrawing our nationals from the Chinese war zones, he has told them not to take precautions against injury, he has kept our warships in that war zone, exposing us to inevitable incidents." 278

Virgil Jordan, noted Economist and President of the National Industrial Conference Board, in a notable address delivered at Philadelphia in February, 1940, before referred to, with prophetic vision stated: " I n the case o f o u r o w n c o u n t r y , o u r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the w a r m u s t be regarded as an e x p r e s s i o n of the i n t e r n a l s i t u a t i o n a n d a s a n i n s t r u m e n t o f the i n t e r n a l p o l i t i c a l aggression w h i c h has developed d u r i n g the past seven years. * * * We are i n fact p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the w a r n o w , a n d w e w i l l i n e v i t a b l y share its consequences, w i t h special features a r i s i n g o u t o f o u r internal situation. " * * * It is in accord w i t h the i n d o l e n c e of h u m a n n a ture to select the easiest a n d m o s t pleasant p o s s i b i l i t i e s a n d t o i g n o r e o r d i s c o u n t the facts w i t h t h e m . T h e American a n d m a n y other people have been d o i n g that since the W o r l d W a r , a n d that i s w h y the facts have relentlessly o v e r t a k e n t h e m a n d w h y they are n o w f i n a l l y faced w i t h the difficult a n d p a i n f u l p o s s i b i l i t i e s w h i c h they have persistently i g n o r e d . On this basis, and in this sense, therefore, I say I t h i n k the f o l l o w i n g things w i l l happen i n consequence o f the war, unless the w a r stops before the m i d d l e of this year, a n d unless a tremendous effort is made to prevent them f r o m h a p p e n i n g .

" W i t h i n the next m o n t h the total phase of the w a r w i l l begin in Western Europe, w i t h unrestrained bombi n g o f c i v i l i a n p o p u l a t i o n s i n t h e p r i n c i p a l cities, a n d w i t h efforts o f G e r m a n y t o f l a n k o r b r e a k t h e A l l i e d lines, a n d o f R u s s i a t o o v e r r u n a n d p i l l a g e t h e B a l t i c p e n i n s u l a , t h e B a l k a n States a n d t h e N e a r E a s t . " T h e s e e x p e c t e d events, w h i c h M r . S u m n e r W e l l e s has b e e n sent a b r o a d to c o n f i r m , w i l l d e t e r m i n e t h e President to announce his decision to r u n for another t e r m on the p l a t f o r m of n a t i o n a l emergency, h e m i s p h e r e defense a n d p a c i f i c a t i o n o f E u r o p e . H e w i l l be renominated, a n d by N o v e m b e r the situation of E n g l a n d a n d F r a n c e w i l l a p p e a r to t h e A m e r i c a n p e o p l e to b e so serious t h a t t h e present A d m i n i s t r a t i o n w i l l be r e - e l e c t e d . Within a year from now our army, navy and air forces will be actively engaged in hostilities in Europe, Asia, and South America, against, Germany, Russia, Japan and Italy. "Such a war will continue through the forties (until 1950), under the present Administration. Until we are actively engaged, the Allies will be supplied through government selling agencies and financed by government loans. In the course of the war, after active participation begins, all man-power will be conscripted for domestic labor as well as military purposes; t h e b a n k i n g s y s t e m w i l l b e f u l l y n a t i o n a l i z e d ; o u r g o l d reserves w i l l b e r e p e a t e d l y r e v a l u e d ; t h e c u r r e n c y w i l l b e progressively depreciated; liquid private property w i l l


b e confiscated b y successive c a p i t a l l e v i e s ; a l l v o l u n tary private saving a n d investment in enterprise w i l l cease; prices a n d wages w i l l be fixed, a n d the operation of a l l basic industries a n d of p o w e r transportation a n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n systems w i l l b e c o n d u c t e d b y p o l i t i c a l agencies. T h e r e w i l l b e increasing i n t e r n a l disorder due to sabotage a n d resistance by a l i e n groups, u n e m p l o y a b l e s , s t r i k e s , pacifists, p o l i t i c a l dissenters, a n d groups o f property owners a n d taxpayers, w h i c h w i l l be suppressed by a r m e d force, espionage, censorship a n d s u s p e n s i o n o f c i v i c r i g h t s a n d c i v i l processes. "* * * The p r o d u c t i o n a n d sale of a i r p l a n e s , a n d p o s s i b l y other m i l i t a r y supplies abroad is n o w cond u c t e d b y the S e c r e t a r y o f the T r e a s u r y . T h e resistance of C h i n a and F i n l a n d is already or is about to be financed through loans by government agencies. T h e v o l u n t a r y h i r i n g o r d i s c h a r g e o f most e m p l o y e e s i s n o w subject to government regulation a n d taxation. O u r g o l d reserves h a v e a l r e a d y b e e n r e v a l u e d , a n d e x e c u t i v e d i s c r e t i o n i n r e v a l u i n g t h e m has been c o n t i n u e d by Congress. T h e extent to w h i c h one believes the curr e n c y has a l r e a d y d e p r e c i a t e d d e p e n d s u p o n one's v i e w o f the n o r m a l p r i c e l e v e l ; but, t h o u g h s o f a r unsuccessf u l , a p r i m a r y p u r p o s e o f g o v e r n m e n t p o l i c y i n the past s e v e n y e a r s h a s b e e n t o r a i s e t h e p r i c e l e v e l a n d r e d u c e the p u r c h a s i n g p o w e r o f t h e d o l l a r ; a n d I h a v e no doubt that this w i l l take place r a p i d l y w h e n the a c t i v e p h a s e o f t h e w a r begins. E x t e n s i v e c a p i t a l levies o n l i q u i d p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y h a v e a l r e a d y been m a d e b y r e d u c i n g the interest r e t u r n o n s m a l l s a v i n g s , a n d b y t a x a t i o n w h i c h has c o n t i n u o u s l y c o n f i s c a t e d c a p i t a l a n d d e p r e c i a t e d p r o p e r t y v a l u e s . V o l u n t a r y investm e n t i n p r o d u c t i v e e n t e r p r i s e has a l r e a d y p r a c t i c a l l y ceased, a n d the s e c u r i t i e s m a r k e t s h a v e b e e n k i l l e d . W a g e s , the p r i c e s o f b a s i c c o m m o d i t i e s a n d s e r v i c e s , the financial management, administration of personnel, a n d the m a r k e t i n g p r a c t i c e s o f a l l b a s i c i n d u s t r i e s , e l e c t r i c p o w e r , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n a n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n systems are a l r e a d y controlled by p o l i t i c a l agencies. "I have no doubt that the extension of these processes in consequence of the war will be justified, like the changes made during the past seven years, as indispensable for the defense of democracy and the preservation of the enterprise system; and it must be admitted that one sure way of protecting both against the possibility of further damage is to kill them promptly and completely. "At the end of this period every important nation, including the United States, will be hopelessly insolvent and will have dissipated its private capital resources


and repudiated its public debts. Most of Europe will be physically devastated; an enormous part of the population will have been killed by explosives, disease and starvation; the rest will be ruled by the armed gangs upon which they will be dependent for a living, and which will control all economic resources and conduct all industry and trade. In this country all free enterprise of any importance will have disappeared; the standard of living of most of the population except political job-holders and dependents will be lower than it was at the beginning of the century; and our economic organization and political institutions will have been transformed into the current European form of mechanized bureaucratic feudalism. "I hope that these things will not happen, but I think they will because there are so few people in this country who now realize that they can happen and are happening, and who are now willing to make any personal sacrifice or take any risk to try to prevent them from happening. Most of the American people since the World War have become very sheepish in face of the increasingly aggressive trend of government. If they are fed and amused by their political gangs they are willing to be sheared and even occasionally slaughtered. The proportion of private citizens who regard the conduct of their public employees with the relentless vigilance and persistent suspicion which has always been imperative in the preservation of human liberty has diminished almost to a vanishing point; and to the great majority the latter have become an indispensible source of entertainment and reverent awe, second in importance only to the transient stellar constellations of Hollywood, and equally worth paying any price for. Until some substantial part of our people regain through bitter experience a little of the profound distrust and aggressive resentment toward political power which was traditional in American life for two centuries we need expect no great change in their taste for the gladiatorial games which their government conducts in domestic and international affairs. Most of them will continue to feel that it is better to be a live sheep than a dead lion."

For nearly three years the President, the Jewish-owned or controlled press, the Jewish-owned radios, and the crafty Judas radio commentators, have, to the almost complete neglect of our domestic problems, created a psychosis of fear and hate on the part of the American public, until there exists an insane desire among a number of our people to commit suicide in Europe rather than to stay 281

at home and defend America. In this effort of World Jewry and Roosevelt to continue to make Europe's wars our wars, they have been aided by the Bourbons, the Anglophiles, the war-mongers and blood profiteers, the munition makers, the chemical companies, big bankers, big steel, copper barons, international oil companies, big motor and rubber companies, airplane industry, shipping companies, Morgans, Lamonts, Rockefellers, Aldriches, Astors, Harrimans, Vanderbilts, Duponts, Cromwells, Joe Davies, Gerards, etc. and it goes without saying big Jew barons of finance and industry, including the New York City octopus. After M r . Roosevelt made his war-like speech to the University of Virginia lads at Charlottesville, June 1940, in a headline, "Surge of 'War' Buying Boosts Stocks $4 to $9", it was stated by the Associated Press: "The stock market surged upward $4 to $9 in leading issues to-day, in the most striking upswing since the huge wave of 'war' buying which swept the market last September 5." This meant billions of dollars of gain to these New Y o r k City death merchants. During the McKinley Administration the foreign affairs of the Republican Party were manipulated by Anglophile Secretary of State John Hay, aided by Theodore Roosevelt, Senator Lodge, Senator Beveridge, Admiral Mahan, New York City, W a l l Street, international finance and big business, into the party of imperialism, "manifest destiny" and recurrent meddler in Europe and Asia. Seduced by Woodrow Wilson, House, Lansing, McAdoo, Anglophiles, World Jewry and the hidden hand of Elihu Root, the Democratic Party violated all of its traditions and became also a party of imperialism and internationalism with an added taint of socialism. Under Franklin Roosevelt and the Jews, abetted by the incessant propaganda of Jewish newspapers, radio and movies, the Democratic Party no longer exists. Its battle cry is Internationalism. God help America! Again the same forces, no longer subtle but brazen and conscienceless beyond belief, are at work, trying to convince us that we are a necessary element to the solution of Europe's difficulties. Again there is talk of our duty to "democracy"; again the same deluge of tear-wrenching horror stories; again the same arguments from the Allies. We are unable at this time to give you all the facts from the mouths of the plotters, but we predict that you will not have to wait twenty years for them, as you did after the last World War. 282

Big business, big finance and W a l l Street are proverbially dumb where anything but money grubbing is concerned, but we warn them they are playing into the hands of Roosevelt, World Jewry, the radicals and the Communists in their war-mongering and pursuit of blood money. The great middle class of this country is conservative and desires to remain so, but it will bitterly resent another disclosure of scandals and war profiteering, such as was revealed in the hearing before the Senate Committee investigating the Munitions Industry, in the last World War. American capitalists, we desire to be your friends and give you our support. Come back to America. Forsake international finance and the British-Jewish Empire. If you have no sympathy for the sons of the common people, realize on your own behalf that participation in this war on behalf of England means inflation, hopeless insolvency, dissipation of private capital resources, and a repudiation of public debts. It means a dictatorship during the period of our participation and some form of Fascism thereafter. Our recent Ambassador to Britain, Joseph P. Kennedy, stated on November 10, 1940, that, "Democracy is finished in England;" that "National Socialism is coming out of it (the war)" in Britain. He further said: "If we get into war it (National Socialism) will be in this country, too. A bureaucracy would take over right off. Everything we hold dear would be gone. They tell me that after 1918 we got it all back again. But this is different. There's a different pattern in the world."

The Jews and Gentiles of this country, who by secret understandings and promises inveigled England into this world conflagration, have much to answer for. Many of the kid-glove Gentiles thought they were England's friends, but they have brought upon her a terrible affliction, destruction and National Socialism. From all that has gone before, all experience and the record of the facts, it is easy to say that we are nearer another great war to-day than we were even as late as February, 1917, two months before we declared war on Germany. This time, however, we are up against a much more dangerous situation. Not only are we facing the probability of fighting in Europe on behalf of England — no longer are France, Italy, Russia, Japan, Serbia, Belgium, and Rumania dying for her — fighting a Germany much stronger than the Germany of 1917, in alliance with Italy and Japan, but we are facing an infinitely more dangerous condition at home. For nearly eight years our national Treasury has been looted by a series of raids on behalf of exactly those kinds of citizens who are 283

least interested in preserving our form of government. Led by Jews, the Communists have become strong in our Government, so strong in fact, that over 2000 supporters have been reported by the Chairman of the Dies Committee to be in strategic posts in Washington— an organized, able and vicious 'Fifth Column". Already, by legislative trickery and political sabotage, with open or secret co-operation of the Administration, they have undermined our courts, our currency, our national defense system, our industries, banks, schools, colleges, and what is most important, our ability to stand upon our own feet. We are on the verge of bankruptcy as the result of a long series of fake "emergencies", each designed as an excuse for further attacks against our Republic. If the American people, who love their sons and their country, w i l l refrain from buying products advertised by war mongering alien-minded newspapers, radios, columnists and Judas commentators, they w i l l touch this un-American horde where they are most susceptible, viz: their pocketbooks—their chief source of World Power. Is it a mere coincidence that Lenin and Stalin have both urged "practical bankruptcy" to make a victim Nation "fully ripe" for communist take-over, and that M r . Roosevelt has persistently led us in that direction? We cannot help recalling his amazing assertion on July 7, 1938: "It has taken courage for the Federal Government to go into the 'red', . . . But it has been worth it." Worth it to whom? Surely, not to those interested in preserving the American Republic. Does not the New Deal occupy an undeniable status of fellow-traveler with communism, promoting Marxian sabotage? Notwithstanding M r . Roosevelt is under solemn oath, along with all other Federal officials, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, yet, in an official letter of July 5, 1935, favoring a piece of New Deal legislation, he unhesitatingly and brazenly urged that members of the U. S. House of Representatives— "not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the suggested legislation." ( V o l . 79 Congressional Record, p. 14363). Nor have we forgotten his unrepentant confession on January 3, 1936: "We have built up new instruments of public power . . . (which in other hands) . . . would provide shackles for the liberties of the people." ( V o l . 5, p. 16, Public Papers of Franklin D. Roosevelt.) 284

Constitutional American Liberty precludes, of course, instruments capable of shackling. It is difficult to conceive of any loyal American being willing to thus surrender the safeguards of a Republic, and submit to any untrammeled power of Despotism in the childish hope that it will be exercised benevolently. Consequently, those who favor the continuance in office of such a President for a third term are, obviously, lacking in fundamental Americanism, and unworthy to be called public leaders in the American Republic. N o w we have a new and infinitely dangerous "emergency" — as false and evil as any that has confronted us since 1933 when the New Deal came to power. W i t h our national resources weakened and our ability to protect our vital interests lower than it has ever been, we are told that we may have to "fight for our lives". We know who asks us to shed our blood, give our money and resources and to sacrifice the rights that made us once the strongest nation on earth. They are the very persons who have done more than any one else to create the emergency. We are now told that we must have Roosevelt and the New Deal for four years more to "guarantee national unity" and to "protect our sacred institutions of democracy." We are told that we must not change horses in the middle of the stream. "Who got the horse in the middle of the stream." The slogans, the war-cries of today, are not the slogans of peace but of a war actually here. Unless Jewish monopoly of press, radio, movies and other forms of communication are definitely and finally ended, we and our posterity shall remain in servitude to that tribe. We will for all time be compelled by a false hypocritical barrage of propaganda to conduct our foreign relations and fight foreign wars as to World Jewry seems desirable. Jews buy or threaten, flatter or denounce, praise or ridicule weak-kneed Americans and those who "crook the pregnant hinges of the knee where thrift may follow fawning" into doing their bidding. Within the past week a bulletin designed to place everyone, in the category of Fifth Columnists, who fights the efforts of World Jewry and Roosevelt to draw us into this war has been published. What this amounts to is an accusation that any American who objects to being killed in Europe or Asia for World Jewry, Roosevelt and the British-Jewish Empire, is a traitor to America regardless of his motives, his devotion to his country and his antecedents. In 1940 America is operated as an English Colony. The British Ambassador informs us how to conduct our foreign affairs, in lan285

guage approved by the President and the State Department, at public meetings arranged by the government—and our AnglophileJewish press and radio cry: "Hosanna in the Highest". Jewish Wall Street, New Y o r k City death merchants, multimillionaires, big business, high society, and the Anglophiles along the Atlantic Seaboard who throughout Roosevelt's seven long years have applied every epithet in the English language to him — radical, Communist, un-American, demagogue, megalomaniac, spendthrift, untrustworthy, violator of pledges, promises, platforms and traditions, dictator of Congress and the Supreme Court, and complete general incompetency — now declare that in international affairs he is a genius and a statesman, the only man in America who can be trusted to steer the Ship of State through turbulent waters, the only man in America who should be permitted to break the tradition against a third term honored since the days of Washington. Why? Is it possible that they put their sordid profits and the interest of Britain, World Jewry, international finance, and blood money before the safety of their own country? Mothers and fathers, sons and daughters of America! Y o u now know the facts! We have told you truths no Jewish newspaper or radio w i l l disclose. If you delay or neglect the performance of your plain duty to spread these truths through every possible means, the blood of your sons, their suffering and their destruction w i l l be on your heads. Y o u will have become a co-conspirator for their slaughter and for the ruin of our Republic. A W A K E A M E R I C A !



HOW T H E JEWS FORCED AMERICA INTO WORLD WAR II by William Anderson In the years before World War II, the American public had no desire to go to war in either Europe or Asia. We, as Americans, had no interest in warring with Germany, Italy or Japan. Yet America was forced to battle the Axis Powers for four long years at the sole behest of International Jewry. In fact, World Jewry commenced its war against Germany in 1933, the year Hitler came to power, even before he had time to begin implementing a program for pulling Germany out of its own economic depression. Jewry's declaration of a "holy war" against Germany was issued by Samuel Untermeyer of the World Jewish Federation who said in the New York "Times" of 7 Aug. 1933 that it would be means of an "economic boycott that will undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depends." Furthermore, the Toronto "Evening Telegram" of 26 Feb. 1940 quotes Rabbi Maurice L. Perlzweig of the World Jewish Congress as telling a Canadian audience that "the World Jewish Congress has been at war with Germany for seven years" (i.e. 1933). Jews were obviously willing to back up their threats, for the London "Sunday Chronicle" of 2 Jan. 1938 reported that "leaders of International Jewry" had met in Geneva, Switzerland to set up a $2.5 B I L L I O N fund to undermine the economic stability of Germany. However, Jewish boycotts against Germany failed to bring that nation to its knees as Hitler had already freed Germany from dependence on Jewish usury. Since economic pressure by World Jewry could not break the back of Germany, it was determined that an actual war would be necessary to destroy Hitler. This desire to decimate Germany is understandable when one recognizes that Jews are a parasitic race and as parasites will fight to the death when the host attempts to expell them. The Jewish desire for war was admitted to by Rabbi Felix Mendelsohn in the Chicago "Sentinel" of 8 Oct. 1942 where he states: "The Second World War is being fought for the defense of the fundamentals of Judaism." Thus, Rabbi Mendelsohn flatly expresses the view that WWII was a Jewish war. 287

This Jewish scheme came to fruitation in 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. Britain and France, under Jewish domination, then declared war on Germany, conveniently ignoring the fact that the Soviet Union (under Jewish rule) had also invaded Poland. As proof, James Forrestal, later to become Secretary of Defense, in his diary of 27 Dec. 1945 notes that he played golf with Joseph Kennedy, FDR's ambassador to Britain, who told him that ex-Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain "stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into war." For his candor and later opposition to the bandit state of Israel, Forrestal was murdered in 1949 (ruled a "suicide"). Jews throughout the world screamed that Germany was intent on ruling the world, but Gen. George C. Marshall admitted after the war, in testimony before Congress, that no proof could be found that Hitler planned any conquest of the world. In fact, Hitler's actions against Czechoslovakia over the Sudentenland and Poland over Danzig were just part of Hitler's long stated desire to re-acquire the territory taken from Germany after WWI in the Treaty of Versailles. While stones are being cast, it should be recalled that after Germany took back the Sudentenland from Czechoslovakia, Poland seized the territory of Teschen from the Czechs which it had no claims toward. So, after the Jews had ignited a war in Europe, it was found to be necessary to draw America into that war as France had fallen and Britain tottered on the brink of defeat. To bring the U.S. into this Jewish war, International Jewry had the services of a master at corrupt politics — the one and only Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Interestingly enough, Col. Curtis Dall who was once FDR's son-in-law accused Roosevelt of being partly Jewish. In any event, Roosevelt was surrounded by plenty of Jew advisors such as Bernard Baruch, S. I. Rosenman, Sidney Weinburg, Sidney Hillman and Felix Frankfurter. For the first time, Jewry had a President who was totally subservient to them and they spared no effort to keep him in office. For example, when it appeared that Sen. Huey Long would defeat Roosevelt for the 1939 Democratic nomination, he was assassinated by Dr. Carl Weiss, a Jew. Nevertheless, American public opinion was overwhelmingly opposed to any involvement in WWII. Americans realized that they had been duped into WWII and were not interested in losing the lives of loved ones in a war that offered no benefits to the U.S. In effect, Americans were heeding the advice of George Washington in his "Farewell Address" where he warned that Americans must not become involved in intangling alliances with foreign nations. 288

Those patriots who followed Washington's sound advice were disparagingly referred to as "isolationists," but they were, in actuality, neutralists. Thus Congress, acting on the will of the people, passed the Neutrality Act of 1935 which embargoed any U.S. arms from being sent to a warring nation. About three years later, in 1938, Rep. Louis Ludlow of Indiana introduced a resolution requiring a public vote of support of any declaration of war by Congress. Roosevelt and the Jews knew this measure could easily destroy their efforts, so an all out attack on the resolution was launched. As a result, the Ludlow bill was narrowly defeated. The Jews had good reason to block the resolution for the American Institute for Public Opinion (AIPO) released at that time a poll showing 83% of the citizens opposed to U.S. intervention in an European war. Moreover, in April 1939, during the height of war fever, a whopping 95% opposed American entry into a war against Germany. That's right, virtually every citizen was soundly against the U.S. involving itself in a foreign war. As a result, Congress strengthened the Neutrality Act by barring commerce and travel, as well as arms, to any belligerent power. At this point, the Jews began to show signs of desperation, but these wily manipulators of world events still had a few tricks up their collective sleeve. So, in 1939 an immense propaganda campaign, the likes of which had never before been seen, was launched. No stone was left unturned in Jewry's assault on the minds of the American people. One was bombarded with the most outlandish lies about Hitler and Germany from all sides — in newspapers, magazines, books, radio and motion pictures. FDR also unleashed the powerful, persuasive techniques of the federal government in the blitz to "hate Germany." To get an idea of just how far this propaganda attack went, one should note that Jew Theodore Kaufman wrote a book entitled "Germany Must Perish," which outlined a plan to exterminate Germans by sterilizing 48 million of them. Believe it or not, this call for genocide by a Jew was well received in many influential circles. Conversely, Germany never carried out a "holocaust" against the Jews, but after the war was accused of doing so any way. This "holocaust" hoax trumped up by Jewry has been used since WWII to divert attention from their own machinations to plunge America into the maelstrom of yet another war. The Jew orchestrated assault of hate against Germany was successful in cowering Congress into lifting the arms embargo and allowed the free flow of weapons to Britain and later to the Soviet Union. This action made U.S. ships carrying the arms fair targets for German subs; but no attacks occurred, which is certainly odd behavior for a "madman" (Hitler) bent on "world rule." 289

While Congress succumbed to the barrage of hate propaganda, the public remained totally against the war. For instance, in Oct. 1940 about 83% polled were opposed to U.S. involvement. In April 1941, it was 85% against and in July 1941, opposition was pegged at a healthy 79%. Not surprisingly, the pollsters quit asking the question at this point, as FDR and Jewry had all but gotten war officially declared. By 1940, Roosevelt had rammed through Congress a draft and conscription although polls indicated at least 50% of the public was against such a move. By now it should be perfectly obvious that World Jewry had begun planning for U.S. entry into the war at least three years before Pearl Harbor, despite overwhelming opposition. Speaking of Pearl Harbor, it is important to understand the complete facts surrounding the "surprise attack." While 95% of all respondents were opposed to war in 1939, about 90% indicated they were willing to fight if directly attacked. Operating on this information, Jewry did everything possible to goad either Germany or Italy into attacking America. However, the bait was refused as Hitler was attempting at that time to negotiate a peace with England, which was flatly rejected by the Jew lackey Churchill. Thus Jewry's attention turned toward Japan, which had a mutual defense pact with Germany and Italy. Japan had been engaged in a war with China which FDR and the Jews tried to use as an excuse for American intervention, even though the events in Asia were of no concern to America. Jewish, not American, interests however were what concerned Roosevelt and in July 1941, he froze Japanese assets in the U.S. and embargoed trade. This was reason enough to declare war, but Japan humbly proposed to sit down and negotiate U.S.-Japanese differences. Instead of accepting the offer, FDR insulted Japanese Ambassador Nomura and refused to meet with Prime Minister Konoye. As a result, Konoye and his "peace party" were replaced by Gen. Tojo and his "war party," yet Japan continued to make peace overtures only to have them all flatly rejected. Finally, on 26 Nov. 1941, Roosevelt sent an ultimatum to Japan which amounted to a virtual declaration of war. This ultimatum, according to Prof. Harry Elmer Barnes, was actually drafted by Jew Harry Dexter White (Weiss) in collaboration with Jew Treasury Secretary Harry Morgenthau. It was this ultimatum, penned by two Jews, that forced Japan to attack or else "lose face," which in Oriental thinking is a fate worse than death. The final, sorry episode of this disgusting chain of events is that Washington knew of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor at least 12 hours before the blow fell, but refused to warn military officers there. The U.S. had been forewarned since the Japanese message code had been broken and America was thus able to monitor Japanese 290

dispatches. No word was sent to Pearl Harbor by FDR and the Jews as the messages revealed that the attack should be called off if it appeared that the Americans were prepared. So International Jewry by going through the "back door" had successfully ensnared America into WWII; a war that would cost millions of lives and billions of dollars. The bottom line of the war would be a world under the total subjugation of Jewry through its twin arms of Communism and Zionism. These facts have been covered up and ignored in the mass media, but Charles Lindbergh, for one, recognized where the finger of proof pointed. In his "Wartime Journals," he states that "the Jews, the Roosevelt administration, and British sympathizers combined to encourage the U.S. to enter World War II." Lindbergh and other patriots sought to stop Jewry's war plans by setting up the America First Committee. The committee found widespread support, but could not overcome the billions spent by Jews to brainwash the public into accepting war after Pearl Harbor. And it is Jewry which best recognizes why the U.S. entered WWII. "The American Hebrew," in an editorial of 24 July 1942, declared that "whenever an American or a Filipino fell at Bataan or Corregidor or at any other of the now historic spots where MacArthur's men put up their remarkable fight, their survivors could have said with truth: the real reason that boy went to his death was because Hitler's anti-semitic movement succeeded in Germany." The above quotation from a Jew newspaper is an admission that the U . S . entered WWII only at the behest of World Jewry — a war Jewry declared all the way back in 1933! Of course, this admission was intended only for consumption by a Jewish audience to keep them in the know, which tends to make it all the more revealing. Any American involvement in a foreign conflict should be judged as to whether it is in the best interest of the American nation; yet the U.S. entered WWII because it was in the best interest of International Jewry. Thus, the Jews forced the U.S. into war against the public's will in 1941 and the $64 million question is will it happen again? Events are already pointing towards a build-up of war hysteria. Without a doubt, Jewry is leading America by the nose towards war in the Middle East on behalf of the bandit state of Israel. Will we learn from the lessons of the past or will we once again find ourselves forced into war for the benefit of World Jewry?